(no subject)

[eyelessgame]

I nicked these quotes from James Fallows' blog. Both from the latest Dem debate.

As beautifully presented and passionately felt as they are, [words] are not action. What we've got to do is translate talk into action and feeling into reality. I have a long record of doing that, of taking on the very interests that you have just rightly excoriated because of the undue influence that they have in our government. And you know, probably nobody up here has been the subject of more incoming fire from the Republicans and the special interests, so I think I know exactly what I'm walking into and I am prepared to take them on.

versus

It's easier to be cynical and just say, "You know what, it can't be done because Washington's designed to resist change." But in fact there have been periods of time in our history where a president inspired the American people to do better, and I think we're in one of those moments right now. I think the American people are hungry for something different and can be mobilized around big changes -- not incremental changes, not small changes....

The truth is actually words do inspire. Words do help people get involved. Words do help members of Congress get into power so that they can be part of a coalition to deliver health care reform, to deliver a bold energy policy. Don't discount that power, because when the American people are determined that something is going to happen, then it happens. And if they are disaffected and cynical and fearful and told that it can't be done, then it doesn't. I'm running for president because I want to tell them yes, we can.

Not quite to the point of declaring my all-important :) endorsement. But those words move me closer. And I do love me an underdog.

(And just by the way, look! Complete sentences! Coherent paragraphs! Actual thought! Both of them! Remember, way back in another millennium, when presidents spoke like this?)

Comments

[kirbyk.livejournal.com]

I've been favorable to Obama for some time, but was skeptical that he could actually win. But damn if I don't fall in love every time I hear him speak.

I know this would've been more insightful a few months ago, but the Democratic Primary seems to be a direct referendum on idealism itself. Can someone who is truly good, well spoken, and a modern day Mr. Jefferson Smith really be effective in Washington D.C. in the twenty-first century? Or is he doomed, and we're better off with the ultimate insider who absolutely can get things done in the culture?

The latter is possibly true, but it makes my heart swell to see people choosing the former. If Obama is elected and flounders, it'll inflict a mortal wound on my idealism, but I really want to give him the chance, to see if America really can be, not just effective, but truly great again.

[hzatz.livejournal.com]

Did you see this?

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/01/07/protestors-disrupt-obama-rally/

More points for Obama, in my book...

[amphipodgirl.livejournal.com]

A pundit on the news hour today (NPR) said "Republicans fall in line; Democrats need to fall in love." They think we're falling for Obama right now. Swoon... I do see the point of the importance of a practical track record, but I think Clinton's got too many negative impressions with too many people; it'll hamper her effectiveness. And idealists are awful nice to listen to...

[barking-iguana.livejournal.com]

I don't know if I'm on a friends view you read, but i took this (and hzatz's link) and ran with it, both on LJ and at Daily Kos.

[tayefeth.livejournal.com]

Not just complete sentence, but complex sentences. Sentences with more than one clause, all of which form a single idea.