View Story | 338 comments
Comments: Expand Shrink Hide (Always) | Indented Flat (Always)
found most impressive in Obama's presentations is the consistent use of the "we". Not I, not you. We. The subtle and inclusive use of the "we" is a powerful, subliminal pull on the listener, and I have long thought that it makes him one of the most sophisticated candidates we have had in a very long time.
Subtlety is the art of saying what you think and getting out of the way before it is understood.
by Granny Doc on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 01:21:02 PM PDT
[ Parent ]
Meet me back at: The Telepresent Tribune
by Stephen Daugherty on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 01:39:10 PM PDT
The working poor are largely anti-abortion.
"A Child is Not a Choice" is a project out of rightie Washington that has stolen tens of millions of their votes. It is well entrenched, spread widely.
Aborted little human forms appear on church bulletin boards everywhere.
So, HOW TO BEAT THIS PROJECT ???
It must be a trade-off.
AN OFFER THAT THE WORKING POOR CANNOT REFUSE.
Their chidren and their old, for giving up the anti-abortion movement.
HEALTH CARE vs. ABORTION.
If Obama can make that tactical sorte, then he will win November by more than ten points.
BTW: abortion is the Republicans' one and only reason for electoral existence. Count the votes.
Take away the abortion votes and this rightist incarnation of the Republican Party dies within the one election cycle.
Your children for "the unborn." Pick one. So far, they have chosen poorly, getting nothing.
Dixie Chicks, Amy Winehouse, Imus, and Rev. Wright. Overcome our evil with good.
by vets74 on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 04:24:27 PM PDT
But since the discussion is nuance and strategy, think about psychological impact of the "unborn" theme, and how powerfully it impacts people who feel powerless and marginalized.
*The fetus is utterly at the mercy of its mother and powerless over her choices and actions.
*The fetus has no protection, except, again, the whim of the mother. And she might be unbalanced, or drugged up, or full of satan or liberal propaganda.
*We must stand up to protect this utterly powerless, marginalized fetus.
*God has a plan for this powerless, vulnerable fetus, and it could be a great one: the baby could grow up to be Mozart. Thus, thwarting God's plan is ruining this baby's potential to have a meaningful, important life.
Do you see a theme here? (I'm rabidly pro-choice btw) They identify with the vulnerability, the powerless condition, the thwarting of future potential, and all by a power (the mother) that holds all the strings and calls all the shots.
This, in my very humble opinion, is why the anti-choice rhetoric has had such a powerful pull with the working class.
"YOPP!" --Horton Hears a Who
by Reepicheep on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 05:32:08 PM PDT
Freedom to choose vs. slavery to that state ... that's how those with jobs that are not themselves worthy of assignment to slaves tend to see the abortion debate. Their preference of (some degree of) freedom to slavery has often been the motivator to stay in school and then get those jobs.
That may also be why the anti-abortion part of the white working class tends towards racism: they resent that blacks gave up their slavery. What could be more ideal: clear work assignments, no worry about money, and a handsome master and beautiful mistress to admire in the mansion. Celebrity worship is a faint consolation compared to the fantasy of being enslaved on the estates of their betters.
Do I have this wrong? Hope so. But how else account for the extreme discounting of the centrality of a woman's freedom among those who take the ghoulish view that the simple act of penetration by sperm ensouls an egg?
by wytcld on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 06:10:19 PM PDT
Does the working class hate freedom? Freedom to choose vs. slavery to that state.
I don't see how believing that personhood begins at conception demands a hatred of freedom. I believe that personhood begins at birth, but I can understand the basic philosophy behind the antiabortion movement.
The argument should be over "How do we govern?" Few people are so convinced that abortion is murder that they want to prosecute the women who "put out a contract" on their fetuses, but neither are all but a few voters so comfortable with the concept that personhood begins at birth that they can say that the fetus is a "glorified organ of the mother."
I think that the only way to settle the abortion issue is to have a "Dr. Phil" debate, where both sides have to accept the extreme logic of their positions; but I don't see such a debate happening.
Let's leave the insults to the other side; thank you.
I'm not asking you to take the country back, I'm asking you to take it forward-Van Jones.
by Judge Moonbox on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 06:51:51 PM PDT
Of course, now, material pursuits are given preference.
Sexual responsibilkity doesn't sell much... sounds square.
by vets74 on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 03:11:33 AM PDT
Thou shalt not kill.
Be pro-choice with respect to abortion all you want.
Its a plain fact that every abortion kills.
So, the one and only trade-off is HEALTH CARE for ABORTION.
Let the democrats pass health care and give it up on abortion.
Cynical ??? Not the word I would choose.
by vets74 on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 03:09:43 AM PDT
Illegal abortion also kills, not only the embryo or fetus, but often the mother. Back in the bad days, women would try to scrape the insides of there own utereses with wire or coat hangers. Others tried douching with something caustic like lye or bleach. Many injured themselves trying to bring on a miscarriage by beating themselves in the stomach or throwing themselves down flights of stairs. Some committed suicide. The back-alley providers would often demand sexual favors from the women at their mercy. The Jane Collective, which operated its underground railroad for may years, learned how to do the procedure from a sypathetic doctor, and had a well organized operation to contact the women in need and get them help. Their fees, if there were any, were quite minimal. The Jane Collective was infiltrated by the FBI and sent to trial. Women from those days tell wrenching stories about being treated brutally by hospital staff when they went in bleeding, often threatening to withold emergency aid unless they gave up the name of the person who did it.
Finally, it is not a "plain fact that every abortion kills." The belief that life begins at conception is specific to certain religions, but not others. In Judaism the life of the mother is always held higher that the life of the unborn. My own belief is that a mass of cells, a miniscule tadpole of potential life, is not worthy of the same rights and consideration as the living breathing women whose body is building the cells. Particularly because the uterus often spontaniously expells these cells on its own, often without the woman ever being aware of it. Also, in many late-term situations, the unborn baby would not be able to survive outside the womb. Some babies develop with almost no brain, no working heart, or other dreadful defects that would prevent them from surviving a second after birth. Women who have the heartbreak of that do not deserve to be forced to carry this pitiful baby to term, knowing that it will die after being detached from the umbilical cord. Certainly not just because your religion says they ought to.
Its my body, my life, my decision. If you disagree, hey great. That's what we're about in America. But reproductive freedom means I get to live by my values, and you get to live by yours. So, if you don't believe in abortion, don't have one. And that seems just and fair to me!
by Reepicheep on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 11:46:13 AM PDT
by converse on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 01:39:49 PM PDT
"I love you" at the end of most of his big-crowd speeches.
by vadasz on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 01:54:25 PM PDT
I didn't know that. Doesn't Clinton always say bod bless you? Curious contrast.
by Quentin on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 02:16:44 PM PDT
people yell "we love you Barack" and he answers "I love you too". It's sweet!
Don't tell me you're a patriot. Let me find it out for myself.
by indybend on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 02:45:32 PM PDT
"I love you back!"
by converse on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 03:17:43 PM PDT
and that sounds even better...
by indybend on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 02:08:17 AM PDT
at the speech in Oregon, Richardson's endorsement.
He does say, "I love you back," but he also ends his speeches with "I love you."
It's one of my favorite things about him.
by vadasz on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 11:00:27 AM PDT
He seldom if ever says just United States, as in President of the United States. Always the full name, in all its grandeur and glory.
Think of the difference, in its rhythm and so much else between
Because we are not a collection of red states and blue states. We are the United States of America.
and
Because we are not a collection of red states and blue states. We are the United States.
by aldpol on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 02:03:33 PM PDT
for President of the United States of America." Yep, he says it a lot. It's a beautiful thing to hear, too.
Electing conservatives is like hiring a carpenter who thinks hammers are evil.
by bwintx on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 02:22:07 PM PDT
WHEN I am president of the United States of America". Yeah!
by indybend on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 02:46:50 PM PDT
I think "United States of America" is simply the most accurate term. Some of the folks with whom we share this continent take issue with the fact that we have claimed the term "America" only for ourselves.
www.ObamaIsWinning.com
by swampus on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 04:02:16 PM PDT
Until recently, Brazil's official title was the United States of Brazil. Mexico used to be "The United States of Mexico." (now, it's the "United Mexican States.") I think Venezuela used that title as well, but I can't find any documentation.
In a Playboy interview back in the 80s, Gabriel Garcia Marquez said that what we need is a NAME.
by Judge Moonbox on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 06:55:21 PM PDT
It is much more poetic.
by Mother of Zeus on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 06:17:20 PM PDT
from the beginning also. Hillary is the "I" candidate, as in "I will do this and this" and Obama is the "we can do this together" candidate. It's drawing everyone in, we're all a part of it, it's our campaign to change the country. And when someone insults or smears our candidate, they are insulting and smearing all of us and we will fight back with a vengeance.
by dotster on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 02:47:55 PM PDT
The prime requisite for politicians on the right.
Almost a requisite for all the big-time politicians.
Obama may be the sole exception at this level since Carter.
Truman is the one and only president who lacked pretension.
by vets74 on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 04:36:40 PM PDT
but he's got a healthy ego. Let's not kid ourselves. He reminds me more of Gore than of any other single politician, to be honest. Other than the native charisma/speaking ability thing. But as a thinker, and in terms of temperament and personality.
by Mother of Zeus on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 06:18:36 PM PDT
or Bush's Decider Guy
The sleep of reason brings forth monsters. --Goya
by MadScientist on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 03:04:52 PM PDT
His use of "we" implies, to me, not only a contract between himself and potential voters, but a link between himself and other Democrats. Although he is not overtly "partisan", he is constantly highlighting the contrast between the way that we want to do things and the way that they want to do things in a way that, IMHO, is improving the Democratic brand at the expense of the already tarnished Republican brand. And he is always so polite about it. Even when expressing strong disagreement, his non-confrontational tone is very easy for people to listen to. People don't tune him out. They listen.
Mr X upthread suggested that Obama is the most gifted politician of our generation. I don't dispute this, but I think that what really sets him apart from most is that he seems to be so selfless about it. He is doing this in a way that will bring plenty of other Democrats along for the ride. I'm sure that personal ambition must play some role in what he is doing, but it does not appear to be the driving force of his campaign.
by swampus on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 03:39:07 PM PDT
That is the difference.
The Clintons feel that they are above the hoi polloi.
They will direct our brainless energies -- for we need their destiny, lacking our own.
(Fuck 'em.)
by vets74 on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 04:42:09 PM PDT
it is really no surprise that Obama is favored over Clinton by such a wide margin on Daily Kos. His campaign is simply more in harmony with the prevailing philosophy here than hers is.
by swampus on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 04:50:19 PM PDT
Though my ancestors were Royalists back in the '70s and '80s.
1770s and 1780s.......
by vets74 on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 03:15:04 AM PDT
wide narrow
View Story | 338 comments