What's yer idea of a good election?

Originally Posted by clevalley

I have noticed this as well - Obama's words are well chosen and his PR people are phenomenal.

My dad was a manager with the old Bell System, which was widely recognized as one of the best managed companies in America. The reason the Bell System was so well managed was all its managers had to go through the Management Assessment Center (MAC), and the philosophy of the MAC was that only about 10% or people who want to be managers actually have the qualities needed to be good managers. As a result, the MAC was designed to fail 90%-100% of the people attending it... pretty severe results but the success of the effort speaks for itself.

The reason I mention this is that one exercise the MAC used was to ask candidates "what is the Bell System's biggest problem and how would you solve it?" The candidates would do a write up and give a report. In the end, the MAC didn't care how creative or dynamic a candidate's analysis or solution was, all they cared about was if the candidate said "I think our biggest problem is X, and we need to do Y to fix it" or if they said "I think the Bell System's biggest problem is X, and that they need to do Y to fix it." Those who naturally thought in inclusive terms made great managers, and those who thought exclusively didn't.

When I listen to Obama, I hear an inclusive thinker, and when I hear either Clinton and McCain, I hear nothing but a strong emphasis on self.

[Mateo]

Originally Posted by clevalley

I have noticed this as well - Obama's words are well chosen and his PR people are phenomenal. His commercials are extremely polished and well thought out...

If only us Republicans can get excited about someone like the dems are w/ Obama and Hillary... maybe I should not put out a blanket statement like that, but for me to be honest I can't get excited about any of the republican candidates right now.

History is rife with excellent PR men, Josef Goebbels, for one. When Obama uses "we", what comes to my mind is the old joke about the Lone ranger and Tonto.
When surrounded by hordes of indians (ooops, gotta be PC) Native Americans, the Lone Ranger turns to Tonto and says"What do we do , Tonto?"
"what you mean "we", Paleface ? "
Obama is evidently in the control of experienced handlers who are briefing him as what to say and when to shut up. Witness the downplaying of Michelle Obama's comment insisting that blacks have a duty to vote for her husband simply because of the fact that he is black (funny I thought he had a white mother as Tiger woods had an Asian mother)
I am in question of "We" Does the term remain concurrent or does it take on a new connotation whenever circumstances changes? In my personal dealings with them (and I emphasize that these are just ones I have spoken with), blacks see only one relevant minority...blacks. When they speak of minorities, they DO NOT include Asians, hispanics, etc. Hence, yes I question the "we". As long as Obama and his handlers can use this to their advantage, and play on obviously white guilt, then they can cruise. However this is a double edged sword. Teddy boy is a good example of this thinking....though you can be sure there are hidden motives in his convoluted mind. I am sure that he is thinking that he and his family can regain their status in the political world by being in a position to"advise" someone as gullible and given to sloganeering as Mo Baracka. Ulterior motives? You betcha.

I think your assessment is a bit off. There is a difference between the "us against them" speech of the Nazis and most Democrats and what Obama is doing. The Nazis effectively used fears of Jews, and dislike/hatred of Communists to stir resentment against one group of people in order to gain support for another. The Clintons and most Democrats have been doing the same thing, they just use the "The Rich", "Big Oil", "Businesses that Move Overseas", and other labels instead of Jews, Communists, and homosexuals.

Hillary's problem is that she's still running on such a campaign. If you listen to her speeches, she cites problem after problem, and blames each and every problem on Bush. She then goes on to claim that she is the one, and only one, who can fix these problems. Now, if you really like and trust Hillary, that message sells. But voters with a less rosey-eyed view of her look at Hillary and have doubts as to if she really has the skills, experience, or knowledge to actually fix the problem. They look back at the Hillarycare fiasco and think - girl... you're going to need a lot of help!

Now, look at how Obama addresses issues and not just now but throughout his stump speeches in Iowa. When asked about a problem, Iraq, healthcare, unemployment, whatever, he would first acknowledge the problem, then say that there are solutions to the problem (and maybe mention a few), then he would say that no matter what anyone says... the problem can be solved but we'll have to work together to solve it. He never said "I can fix the problem!", instead he always talked about how all of us working together, "we" can find a solution to the problem. Is that 90% BS? Absolutely! But he's deftly managed to avoid setting the perception that it's going to be himself that people have to count on to fix things. He's pledging to work as part of a team to fix problems, whereas Hillary is saying she's going to fix things herself. In the end, if you have doubts as to Obama's abilities and experience, they aren't show stoppers because he's just one player on a team. If you have doubts about Hillary, they are show stoppers because she's painting herself as a one-woman show.

I also don't think you can write this off to PR folks. I watched one Obama speech back in Iowa this summer and was really taken by how he acted. It was just him and maybe 40 people sitting outside some business, and the only reason it was on the air was it was on cspan on a weekend. But while he was a lot less preachy, he still had that inclusive view of everything. That's not something that you can really train someone to have (as the Bell System learned). It's something you're born with.

[awpitt]

Originally Posted by Bruzilla

But if you listen to Hillary, everything is phrased using exclusive words, i.e., everything is "me", "I", "mine", "I'm", etc. Obama always uses inclusive language, i.e., "we", "we're", "our", "us", etc. The use of inclusive language is very powerful, and gives people the feeling that they are involved, rather than standing on the outside looking in.

Excellent observation. I noticed it as well. It's amazing how the message changes when you move away from saying everything using 1st person singular.

[Mateo]

Originally Posted by Bruzilla

I think your assessment is a bit off. There is a difference between the "us against them" speech of the Nazis and most Democrats and what Obama is doing. The Nazis effectively used fears of Jews, and dislike/hatred of Communists to stir resentment against one group of people in order to gain support for another. The Clintons and most Democrats have been doing the same thing, they just use the "The Rich", "Big Oil", "Businesses that Move Overseas", and other labels instead of Jews, Communists, and homosexuals.

Hillary's problem is that she's still running on such a campaign. If you listen to her speeches, she cites problem after problem, and blames each and every problem on Bush. She then goes on to claim that she is the one, and only one, who can fix these problems. Now, if you really like and trust Hillary, that message sells. But voters with a less rosey-eyed view of her look at Hillary and have doubts as to if she really has the skills, experience, or knowledge to actually fix the problem. They look back at the Hillarycare fiasco and think - girl... you're going to need a lot of help!

Now, look at how Obama addresses issues and not just now but throughout his stump speeches in Iowa. When asked about a problem, Iraq, healthcare, unemployment, whatever, he would first acknowledge the problem, then say that there are solutions to the problem (and maybe mention a few), then he would say that no matter what anyone says... the problem can be solved but we'll have to work together to solve it. He never said "I can fix the problem!", instead he always talked about how all of us working together, "we" can find a solution to the problem. Is that 90% BS? Absolutely! But he's deftly managed to avoid setting the perception that it's going to be himself that people have to count on to fix things. He's pledging to work as part of a team to fix problems, whereas Hillary is saying she's going to fix things herself. In the end, if you have doubts as to Obama's abilities and experience, they aren't show stoppers because he's just one player on a team. If you have doubts about Hillary, they are show stoppers because she's painting herself as a one-woman show.

I also don't think you can write this off to PR folks. I watched one Obama speech back in Iowa this summer and was really taken by how he acted. It was just him and maybe 40 people sitting outside some business, and the only reason it was on the air was it was on cspan on a weekend. But while he was a lot less preachy, he still had that inclusive view of everything. That's not something that you can really train someone to have (as the Bell System learned). It's something you're born with.

Then all you have proved is that Obama is a politician. Hitler knew what strings to pull from a people smarting from what they construed was injustice on the part of the allies. I am sure the CLintons are doing the same. I have yet to see an honest politician. Obama , to me, is most disengenious, because he is using this as well as a sublimal appeal to others to " right" the wrongs done to half of his heritage. I am sure he learned his craft well. However, some are fooled, others are not.
Why then has neither party put up a viable native American ? Ben Nighthorse Campbell , in my opinion, was capable. If we are for righting the wrongs of the past, why should they not be first ?
To use an oft error stricken statement, This country was built not just on the backs of blacks, but on a host of others, too. It has not been a smooth ride, but we are here now. Appealing to me to vote for a person just on race or some perceived past injustice alone, no matter what issues that person uses as a veneer, is just plain ridiculous. I will again reiterate , you have to give me more than slogans.

[cwo_ghwebb]

Originally Posted by Mateo

Then all you have proved is that Obama is a politician. Hitler knew what strings to pull from a people smarting from what they construed was injustice on the part of the allies. I am sure the CLintons are doing the same. I have yet to see an honest politician. Obama , to me, is most disengenious, because he is using this as well as a sublimal appeal to others to " right" the wrongs done to half of his heritage. I am sure he learned his craft well. However, some are fooled, others are not.
Why then has neither party put up a viable native American ? Ben Nighthorse Campbell , in my opinion, was capable. If we are for righting the wrongs of the past, why should they not be first ?
To use an oft error stricken statement, This country was built not just on the backs of blacks, but on a host of others, too. It has not been a smooth ride, but we are here now. Appealing to me to vote for a person just on race or some perceived past injustice alone, no matter what issues that person uses as a veneer, is just plain ridiculous. I will again reiterate , you have to give me more than slogans.

I agree. Obama is a stirring speaker. However, he really hasn't addressed a method for solving problems, other than 'we' can do this. What is his base philosophy on 'fixing' a problem? Throw more money at it? Create a new government agency to address the problem? It's good to have teamwork but we also need a leader to point the team in the right direction. Just how does Obama propose to do this?

[awpitt]

Originally Posted by cwo_ghwebb

I agree. Obama is a stirring speaker. However, he really hasn't addressed a method for solving problems, other than 'we' can do this. What is his base philosophy on 'fixing' a problem? Throw more money at it? Create a new government agency to address the problem? It's good to have teamwork but we also need a leader to point the team in the right direction. Just how does Obama propose to do this?

Actually, Obama has addressed his ideas about various issues. One might not agree with them but they're there for all to see.....

http://www.barackobama.com/pdf/Obama...tForChange.pdf

[This_person]

Originally Posted by cwo_ghwebb

I agree. Obama is a stirring speaker. However, he really hasn't addressed a method for solving problems, other than 'we' can do this. What is his base philosophy on 'fixing' a problem? Throw more money at it? Create a new government agency to address the problem? It's good to have teamwork but we also need a leader to point the team in the right direction. Just how does Obama propose to do this?

Obama is very much like Henry Drummond's hobby horse from "Inherit the Wind...." - all fluff with no substance.

[Mateo]

Originally Posted by This_person

Obama is very much like Henry Drummond's hobby horse from "Inherit the Wind...." - all fluff with no substance.

I agree that the man has no substance. Yet what is even more frustrating is how many are willing to follow him into an illusion. Maybe that is why Hollywood is heavily behind him. He is going to SFX us into prosperity.
Words are extremely cheap, action is not. As to his donor list, where does he get all his money ? From small donors? I think not. Too many of us small people are just barely above water as petrol goes up followed by a rise in all the basics A man awash in all that money to do just about everything he wants is owing to some pretty interested parties. Of course, he has so much spin in capital letters that he is able to hide all his assets. That is what a saavy politician does. Naive ? yes he is, but he is an end product of a generation that thought that they could change the world..again. Are we willing to let ourselves be led down a similar path ? You bet we are, judging from the Obama (sic)surge.
Hang on , people, buckle in and keep those barf bags ready. We're in for a bumpy ride.

Originally Posted by Mateo

I will again reiterate , you have to give me more than slogans.

You ever see the movie "Joe Dirt", when he's talking to the indian guy about selling fireworks? He says "it's not about what you want... it's about what the consumer wants." You talk about wanting something more than slogans, but most Democrats are showing, by their votes, that they are happy being part of the team and don't need anything more than that.