No Category

Obama Wins Iowa. Same Ol’ Bullshit, Different Color.

Anyone paying attention knows that Obama won Iowa yesterday.

With almost all of the state’s 1,781 precincts reporting, Obama (Ill.) was winning 38 percent of the delegates being awarded in the competition. Clinton (N.Y.) took 29 percent to run third behind former senator John Edwards (N.C.), who drew 30 percent.

This is a great start for Obama as a presidential candidate, but I still think that Obama has yet to really lay down what he wants to see, policy-wise, take place under his office. His talk of “change” still rings hollow to me. I want to hear more about what his vision of “change” and “hope” really means.

I think that “change” and “hope”‘ is only occurring at the local, grassroots level, and working itself up, and I find myself cynical when thinking of mainstream politicians trying to “win office through a politics of change.”

You want my vote? You need to start talking about change and hope for reals. All of this “strategy to get your candidate in office” is a bunch of bullshit to me.

Have fun with your games…

I’m looking to transform.

[edited to add the link to BFP's excellent post that I meant to link to originally but neglected to - KAE]

Call me naive, but that’s how I feel. And I’m sticking with it.

Tell me something good...

Comments are closed for this post.

  1. I’m looking to transform.

    Excellent distinction.

    Posted by Melissa McEwan | January 4, 2008, 11:37 am
  2. We are Obama’s vision for change. We are the changers. Who is going to advocate change to your satisfaction?

    Posted by Eddie Griffin | January 4, 2008, 5:46 pm
  3. To be honest I’m not really happy with politics in general, but Obama hasn’t said exactly what and how things will change. I guess it’s up to me, after I get old and rich…

    Posted by Meep | January 4, 2008, 10:16 pm
  4. Who is going to advocate change to your satisfaction?

    I don’t think it’s an issue of advocating change to my satisfaction. I’m too idealistic for any politician to do that in the near or not-so-near future. Politics is what it is and I think it’s foolish to expect anyone to just jump in and completely overhaul the system.

    But like Meep, I’m not too keen on national politics right now. I’m not that fond of buzz words either. I think the same thing about Clinton and her “experience” talk. What does that mean? Ok, she’s got 8 years as First Lady and 8 years as a Senator. What happens if McCain gets the nomination? Is she gonna roll over and give up because he’s got hella experience on her?

    I want to hear more about actual policy stances and less about abstract concepts like “change.” I mean, Ron Paul is an advocate for change too. And to a lot of white supremacists, he’s an advocate of hope. So yeah, those words mean nothing to me without some concrete examples to back them up. So far, I know that he seems to think it’s a good idea to invade Pakistan, for instance. Well then, he needs to explain to me how this is a change from the imperialistic status quo.

    You say that “we are Obama’s vision for change. We are the changers.” Yep. I totally agree with that, and that’s why I’m finding myself convinced that actual change, change that will beneift people of color, the poor, the LGBT community, the disabled, and any other oppressed peoples is not a top-down enterprise, but rather a botton-up one. This is the first time in my voting life that I’ve seriously considered sitting out the Presidential Election and focusing all of my energy exclusively on grassroots, local and state elections. That’s where I see the real opportunity for progressive change taking place. The work that you, Eddie Griffin, are doing everyday of your life is more important than the cult of personality popularity contest that is our current presidential elections.

    Posted by Kevin | January 5, 2008, 12:51 am