I genuinely covet your inability to muster cynicism. Personally, I try to only view things critically - but often fall down the rabbit hole of cynicism :). Cynicism has it’s place of course - as in the analysis of Cheneys motives. Obama is obviously smart, and is very probably well intentioned - but he is a product of our military-industrial-educational-state complex - and sees the world through the distorted lenses of a US superpower. (As do all of us to varying degrees). I do actually hold out hope with him - but I consider the probability of any significant change minimal. I refuse to vote for any candidate that appears to be chosen by our highly concentrated media powers. At one point 70% of American wanted the war over as soon as possible - yet all the candidates that *genuinely* support this are ignored and driven to the fringe.

John Quimby -

You refer to me as being ‘of the revolutionary stripe’. I can’t help but chuckle. It’s a wonderful point you make - though probably unintentional. To wit: I am simply suggesting that we apply the ‘Golden Rule’ to our foreign policy - the good old ‘Ethic of Reciprocity’ that many of us learned in Sunday school - and for this I’m labeled ‘revolutionary’! How far we are indeed from a sensible foreign policy when simply exposing a noncompliance with a moral truism is considered revolutionary!

Thanks for all the good banter folks.

Again, I listed three items I believe require attention and fresh treatment from the next president. None of it is anywhere near any candidate’s policies or histories. Still, I see a better chance of getting what I’m looking for Obama than from Hillary or McCain.

As for all of your concerns, hell, maybe you’re right.

But for now I just can’t muster the cynicism. Much as every politician deserves it.

http://jayderagon.com/blog/?p=726

The bottom line is that all these politicians need is a crash course on relationships. In the marketplace, the reaction to someone who completely and totally offends your offering of a relationship is the removal of that offering, the commitment to take your business elsewhere, and (if they were really offensive) the commitment to report this offense to everyone you know, everyone they know, and as many people as you can by a variety of broadcast mediums. In government and politics, we have to wait a bit longer — usually around four years. Nonetheless, we all remember the ways to get involved in politics from our American Government class, right? If you don’t like the way you are represented, either jump on the bandwagon of someone you agree (more) with, or build your own bandwagon.

http://carterfsmith.blogspot.com/2008/02/arrrgghhh-all-those-years-studying.html

John Quimby,

No offense taken, I assure you.

I agree, Obama is erasing our traditional race based assumptions about American politics (but for white Americans only). I think he’s convincing many people that he crosses a variety of boundaries. I also think Doc should dig up his piece about the Matrix and make it a metaphor for politics so he can say I told you so when America ends up ultra-polarized after this all shakes out.

http://www.linuxjournal.com/article/9161

Clinton said that Cuba would have to first indicate that they were on a path to “real change”, and said how the Cuban people are “entitled” to democracy. She wouldn’t meet with them until they made certain policy changes. Obama, on the other hand, said that the idea that meeting with the President is some kind of privilege reinforces the idea that the U.S. is somehow above the rest of the world. He said that he absolutely would meet with them. Yes, human rights and democratization would be on the agenda, and that there would have to be preparation for the meeting, but that he wouldn’t put any preconditions on it.

Now, regardless of what your politics are – and this isn’t an endorsement of Obama over Clinton, but on this particular point, one might be completely horrified at Clinton’s response and applauded Obama’s. Obama is saying that we have to have a relationship in order to effect change. Clinton is saying that “they” have to change in order for us to have a relationship.

Is The Difference an Attitude?

Whether the President of the USA or the CEO of a large corporation, building relationships requires a conversation rather than a policy. Too many policies get in the way of having open and honest conversations from which both parties can learn the perspectives of the other and hopefully find common ground from which to establish a relationship.

Whomever we individually or collectively think we are none of us could possibly know everything needed to understand everyone. Arrogance is the fallacy of fools who believe they have learned and experienced everything life has to teach us. Sometimes, actually a lot of times, our own attitudes are our own worst enemy and until we can learn to have conversations with open minds nothing can be learned or gained.

How many times have employees and customers run into corporate policies that simply don’t make any sense or logic? Refer to yesterdays post about Jake McKee experience with American Airlines. Doc Searls talks often about how relationships create transactions and markets. How can we expand our world and solve problems of scarcity unless we’re willing to converse. Conversations start with a willingness to begin a relationships. That is the entire premise of The Relationship Economy.

What say you?

You truly are of the revolutionary stripe and I appreciate your critical eyes and ears

Arguing against a return to America’s Constitutional foundation would be foolish and I suspect that Ron Paul is near and dear to your heart. By all means let’s surrender the empire and be the Republic we were meant to be. In my biased frame of reference the absolutist policy of one party has already resulted in a near collapse of Constitutional law at home and the demise of rational foreign policy away.

I am also not interested in trading the Neo-Con right for the “Hard War” policy of some on the left. That is why Obama’s call for Union is so galvanizing to me. It seems to be the only real, if imperfect, way forward.

carterfsmith -

I would respectfully ask you to consider that Obama is erasing our traditional race based assumptions about American politics. The Clintons are finding that a lot of the African American support they thought they owned has deserted a plantation they cultivated for years. Many will now find that their assumptions about what it means to be black in America has changed.

I don’t wish to offend anyone. You have my loyalty and respect.
But I know for sure that the sands of time are running.

Change is coming.

For a comparison of the debates to The Relationship Economy, check out Jay & Scott’s joint masterpiece at http://www.jayderagon.com/blog.

My concern with Obama is that he will not be able to rally the majority of African-American voters (or citizens). He looks ‘good’ for it, but he’s no more able to relate to what it’s like to be black in America than the man (or woman) in the moon. I don’t think it will be long before folks realize that the ideology of folks with similar alliances is, in fact, a lot more than what is conveyed by just their external appearance.

It is sad, but I think the choices in this election season started out in the crapper, and they just keep swirling around and around.

I fully agree that Obama is calculating correctly. His glazed eye followers are a testament to that.

Obama studied foreign relations - but within the framework of 50-100 years of imperialism. Not quite the objective viewpoint I’m looking for.

Obama taught constitutional law - but teaching the bill of rights and understanding it’s importance are apparently 2 different things. Obama voted to extend the current Patriot Act. He did try to ’soften’ it, but that was largely unsuccessful - and vote to extent it he did. Obviously the Patriot Act is unneeded. We had all the needed intelligence to foreshadow 9/11 prior to the attack - so we fix the bumblings of big government ‘intelligence’ by adding a layer of bureaucracy and shaving down individual rights. Sorry - I can’t endorse that.

I also agree that Obama represents the greater change - amongst the other ‘viable’ candidates. But the change is just shades of gray - and subtle shades at that. We’re talking about the change from overt military imperialism to diplomatic/military-threat/sanction imperialism.

I’ve probably read more speeches by Obama than by any other candidate - I’ve tasted the Grape Kool Aid and it’s sour. BTW - reading his speeches to industry groups and his essay to his masters at the CFR are far more illuminating about who Obama really is than the political claptrap we typically get as ‘just’ voters.

Style vs. substance IS key - saying the words ‘hope’ and ‘change’ over and over again doesn’t represent substance.

Think of how we got here. Ronald Reagan captured the American public, drove to the right and an entire generation of Democrats folded.

Clinton calculated that the margin of victory must be just to the left of the far right.

That’s American Politics since 1980.

Obama knows how Reagan did what he did and the changes Reagan inspired. He also knows that the right is completely spent. (Too bad they used our money.)

He’s saying it’s time to move back to liberal principles.
That’s way BIGGER than papering things over with policy. And that’s why I think he represents greater change.

Obama studied foreign relations and taught Constitutional law.
The style versus substance argument is specious.

But hey, don’t drink the Kool Aid if you don’t want to. Somebody has to drive me home.