Obama rolls with the punches - and talks like Peter Sellers?
I asked the Senator this morning about the piece in the New York Times which suggested that the kitchen sink might be thrown at Obama by the Clinton campaign.
His answer was a study in cool dullness: he will not get into a fight. Even on the subject of he was pretty low-key.
So is that the approach for the debate as well? Might he just roll with the punches? Might he talk about "campaigns we can be proud of when we look back on them" as he did at his press conference this morning?
Meanwhile, is interesting, I think. I have some sympathy with Gideon's inability to be moved by the Obama rhetoric, though I think you have to be there to get it. Great speaking is not about content alone after all, it is about timing, and tone, and the ability to catch moments of audience appreciation and build them into something.
He can do all those things - that's why he's a great speaker. The content, as Gideon says, is little different to that parodied by Peter Sellers all those years ago...
UPDATE: By the way, anyone with a serious interest in what's happening in Ohio and Texas or who thinks they know what WILL happen, might enjoy .
Hello, I'm 
颁辞尘尘别苍迟蝉听听 Post your comment
It probably says more about Mr Rachman than Sen. Obama. As for the current polls, the most reliable part is the trend that it forms a part of. Obama-Clinton polls show a clear trend favouring Obama. Where he has had the time to overcome prejudices, it seems he has won out. Hopefully, when it comes to the general election polls, pollsters will take far larger samples and so eliminate most of the errors that we have so far seen and take them at face value.
Gideon is an idiot if he doesn't understand what the 'fierce urgency of now' means in US politics, where often movements that promise to remove the influence of special interests fail to keep their momentum. He is also a fool if he does not understand that the lack of reform in the US comes from a disillusionment among the poor that the political elite does not care for them. The truth is many commentators on the right genuinely fail to understand the problems that exist for America's left behind or the pervasive influence of big money. That's why the call for change seems empty, when actually it is urgent.
Obama's calm response is very clever. It serves to highlight the volatile and erratic nature of Clinton's campaign: the way she is constantly trying new things out, or waving posters only a day or two after trying to be all conciliatory. He has made her look too theatrical and fake by being low key and quietly self-deprecating. She does not how to respond.
I think one of the most interesting aspects of Obama rise is the fact that he does not seem to have the standards that are applied to typical candidates applied to him. I personally think this is because America is a media (TV, Internet, Radio) obsessed nation. Year after Year after Year of politically correct brain washing has resulted in the U.S. voters cheerily and enthusiastically voting for Obama. He's not the Manchurian Candidate but they are the Manchurian Voters.
You and Gideon have the wrong Peter Sellers reference, I think. This has been said elsewhere on the blogosphere, but you ought to be recalling his character, Chauncy the Gardener, in "Being There". People projected whatever they wanted to on him, even though he spoke in irrelevant platitudes.
Clinton multiple personalities in the past couple days does not inspire or motivate a voter infact it scares the voters.
Clinton's inability to reveal her tax returns, her persecution of 6th grader that no rape occurred, her book deal, her lavish and luxury lifestyle coming across as a blue blood, her vote for Iraq war - that was the last straw that broke the camels back with her ridiculous explanation 'what we know now'.
Or maybe he's just doing whatever gives him the best chance at winning. Staying positive works in some situations not others. Of course it's guaranteed to work in the midst of a protracted media honeymoon, when his opponents are low on cash, so for the moment we won't know if he's married to the idea or just being tactical.
To hurt someone in not-gonna-dignify-it mode, with an unwilling press, you need to go with commercials and repeat it a lot (expensive obviously). That sure worked on Kerry and Dukakis.
p.s. Gideon did say he was there and still didn't get it.
I am visitor from Britain who has been in the US for the last few weeks, following the elections very closely and perhaps allowing my natural, home-grown resistance to hype slip a little under the onslaught of the coverage here. But what I do see, which I didn't back home, is the extent to which people here feel on the brink of something historic, and the mild fear that something may come along to ruin it. People talk nervously about the Republicans, as if they will creep in during the night and spoil the party, as if they may pull off one final illusion and steal it again.
But beyond this, and more importantly, there is real hope. I think Obama has done something here that I've never seen in British politics, even in the heady optimism of 1997 (which this all reminds me of), which is to make people believe that what has been broken can be fixed, and that the house of cards Bush has constructed can be blown away. It may be hype, it may even be naive, but there is a sense, growing all the time, that people want to believe in this gawky, unlikely, eloquent man. It is rhetoric, it is 'just words', but people are doing something we don't do to politicians anymore: they are listening. Maybe - just maybe - he is about to change the world.
He lets others do the mudslinging for him:
"On the very day that Senator Clinton is giving a speech about restoring respect for America in the world, her campaign has engaged in the most shameful, offensive fear-mongering we've seen from either party in this election."
David Plouffe, Obama campaign strategist
Obama uses an oratorical technique perfected by First Nations here in Canada and elsewhere in North Ameerica. The method involves repetition- normally saying the same thing three times, each time in a slightly different way. It's a highly effective method for getting a point across, drumming it in, making sure people have got it. There, I've just done it. I've given an example of it. I've shown you how to do it.
Goodbye, good night and god bless!
The problem for Hillary, in addition to her history, is that the criticisms she has of Obama are the same as those Republicans have of him. For example, his legislative experience is light, and he's naive on foreign affairs.
In truth, Obama has little more than his hope-inspiring rhetoric. No long record of laws passed or history of working in a tougher neighborhood than Chicago. His rhetoric is critical to his success. What else does he really have to run on?
Certainly you cannot be referring to Peter Sellers in "Being There?"
His character was vacuos, illiterate, and with no awareness or understanding of the outside world. In other words, our worst nightmare realized with the election of the current occupant of the White House.
More importantly, you fail to have your finger on the pulse of the U.S. electorate if you cannot see the profound desire for change in U.S. policy--domestic and foreign--that Obama has tapped. Obama understands this, and his superb oratory only enhances his message. Did it ever occur to you that that is why Obama receives thunderous ovations and huge crowds everywhere he goes?
I wish the main blog-post had the little "Complain about this post" link at the bottom.
The heavy-duty Hillary Clinton supporters have been trying to tout this nonsense regarding Obama's "empty rhetoric" for quite some time now. Tell me, what difference does it make when a candidate boldly announces all the things they're going to do? Things like, "Read my Lips! NO NEW TAXES!" Making such claims is pretty empty and history has shown that such statements don't necessarily mean that the actions described will actually be carried out. Obama knows this. So we're left to decide, do we want a candidate with potentially empty promises or do we want a candidate who has shown himself to have the ability to peacefully sway people with words? With his so-called "empty rhetoric," Obama is proving his ability to guide a nation in turmoil. He doesn't make empty promises, he makes friends which, in these times, is an extremely valuable quality for a potential US president. In the long run, it's a way of getting things done. Politics is beginning to think outside of the box and I think you and Mr. Rachman have some catching up to do.
Start practicing the phrase, "President Barak Obama denied today that his naive and spineless foreign policy has encouraged terrorism."
Barak Obama's wild extremes of wanting to abandon one ally overnight (Iraq) while invading another without permission (Pakistan) savors the tendency to believe America's allies or beneficiaries are more deserving of reproach than its open enemies.
It is easy to "roll with the punches" when you know who you are ad are consistent. It is when you are re-inventing yourself according to the polls, that trouble and failure are your partners. Obama has had a lifetime of experience witnessing to who he is in the most effective way because he was born into minority low income status. He had to constantly prove himself in the most accepted way which is polite and definitive. He is not only running for the highest office in the land, but is a role model for maintaining your dignity under fire. I feel he will do nothing that he would not want his children to emulate. That is authentic consistency.
GR is not the only one who is "unmoved" - strangely, or otherwise. Well over half the voting age population does not even turn out to vote, let alone turn on - or get 'turned on' - by Obama Copacabana's alleged rhetorical eclat. This is simply another media fantasy designed to take attention away from the issues and focus it on personal character where it will cause the least amount of real change in policy matters. That is Obama's greatest virtue to his corporate patrons and fellow elitists. To get the public to 'take their eye off the ball' and get caught up in the frothy hype. Not surprising that the FT or anyone from any political perspective that takes a little more sober approach to these affairs should find themselves decidedly "unmoved" by Obama's empty pretenses. It mainly appeals to juvenilles, in case you haven't noticed.
I think our dear Justin has taken to Obama a little having had the opportunity to meet him up close.
On the forthcoming elections in Ohio and Texas, I am a little concerned about Hilary's Schizophrenic campaign. First she says she is 'honoured' to be competing with Obama for the nomination then the next minute she is shouting 'Shame on you Barak' hysterically in a desperate attempt to claw back votes. Desperation doesn't draw people in, it can be quite a turn-off.
"It mainly appeals to juvenilles (sic)..."
What a crazy, uninformed statement, Brett. I suggest you watch the detailed exit polling analysis by the major networks. Obama's base of support is very broad and considerable, and includes highly educated and non-educated, rich and poor, black, white, hispanic, male and female alike. "Corporate patrons'? Hardly. His financial support comes from individuals. And for your information Obama does focus on the real issues that affect
Americans--not some fantasyland neoconservative idea of what America represents.
"Parodied by Peter Sellers"? No, it wasn't parodied by Sellers, but by the script-writer whose words he delivered.
I went to my early voting station today in Texas. Everyone in that line was voting Democratic today that I personally saw. One woman said "I've never in my life voted Democratic before. But we at the Sheriff's office like to keep our votes united and we're voting Democratic this year." Just amazing to me how much of a shift I've seen in my own county.
Talk about silly pundits ... the venerable rinpoche IAMGIDEON of the FT is reduced to parsing music videos.
I thought the Gideon article was very good. Nice ending!
The beauty, of course, in just being about words and not substance, is that if he were to get into office and had to make very hard choices which become very unpopular, he can say 鈥淚 didn鈥檛 say I wouldn鈥檛 do this鈥︹ and that鈥檚 the point! So he is acting very much as the Harvard Law Professor and not as a politician. Ask me no questions, I tell you no lies鈥.
Gideon Rachman is correct: Mr Obama reminds me of the 'crusades' which Billy Graham conducted, extremely uplifting and euphoric at the time he was heard, but of little substance when that wore off. Similarly, snake-oil salesmen had a good line in talk and persuaded great numbers to purchase their noxious or ineffective nostrums - and it seems that those who would vote for Mr Obama are no less gullible than their forebears in that respect. Hillary Clinton is the only candidate who provides practical solutions to difficult problems. She may not be perfect, but the devil you know . . .
"My friends, we must build, but we must build surely." - Peter Sellers "Party Political Speech", or Barack Obama?
I can personally attest to how well Obama's campaign is being run here in Texas. My town is small, but there is a fairly large contingent of local people making phone calls, knocking on doors, offering rides to the caucuses, etc. for him. I haven't heard a word about Clinton.
It isnt that the photo is "african", it is the fact that it is Islamic dress that bothers people. There is a real concern here.
Obama has been endorsed by the Nation of Islam, a group which believes that white people were created in a lab 5,000 years ago (by a mad black scientist) on the island of Patmos!
Obama's office in Houston is flying the Cuban flag with a big picture of Che on it.
Obama's wife wrote her thesis on the "fact" that a black person with a PHD from Princeton has no opportunities in the US (despite the FACT that she lives well above the standard of living).
Bill Clinton's only experience had been as governor of Arkansas, a state with a population, as Ross Perot pointed out, the size of Dallas-Fort Worth. But now it appears many people have forgotten that fact. Obama is as qualified as Bill was, and this business about his inexperience in foreign affairs bears no more weight than it did about Bill Clinton when he was running. Bill Clinton spoke of hope for the future the same as Obama does, and people believed him as they do Obama now. It's that excitement that turns out the vote, not Hillary's tired-seeming commercials, at least in Texas, about "every day I try to help someone." Oh Blech.
At our Democratic precinct caucus here in St. Louis Park, Minnesota, we had several "cross-over" voters who had been very active at Republican conventions as delegates, at higher levels, in the past, and were crossing-over to vote for Obama. These were thoughtful people who were not easily impressed by words. Obama does have an impressive voting record in case the detractors care to google it.
Common Hillary,
Instead of attacking Barrack Obama you should focus on more important issues in this campaign.
The voters are not interested to hear what you've said about Obama.At least you representing youself. The voters are more interested what you've said about your plans if you become President.
Hillary, you should talk about your vision of universal healthcare, employment, foreign policy, economy, taxes etc.
We are in 2008 not in 1980.
What about the fact that everyone promised a clean campaign in the beginning, as they always do, and for the most part we are seeing Obama as the only one even trying to maintain that standard. Clinton, in her husband's style, does whatever it takes (read his autobiography for the original quote) to win in politics. Today she even had to admit that she "got a little mad" over the weekend. If she can't keep her cool in the run-up, what could we look forward to as President? Perhaps American voters are just able to see beyond the whitewash. They've had enough practice in the last 7 years.
Interesting that people believe Obama is "leading" our country already.
They are following, that is for sure, and he is most definitely leading them. But it is not they who he will have to lead come November. It is the powerful politicians and special interests who are very involved in decision making.
I'm not sure they'll be as willingly led by Obama as the voters.
Gerald Graham is exactly right in his analysis of Obama's speaking style. Anyone familiar with debate or political speech-making in general will notice right away that Senator Obama uses repetition constantly when he speaks; often at the dramatic 'climax' of a talk when he'll repeat some phrase beginning with "We Believe..." or something like that. Personally I've always felt mildly offended as an audience member when someone does this; it implies that I'm too stupid to listen along during the actual speech and would be well served by a succinct, dramatic recap of everything he's just said.
Someone might have pointed this out earlier, Obama sounds so much like JFK because he has the same speechwriter, Ted Sorensen. Sorensen is probably the best speech writer any president has ever had (ironically his own attempt to win a senate seat ended in failure), and I think Obama's success can be attributed mostly to the help he has gotten with his oratory skills. You might notice that he doesn't do nearly as well in debates; although he certainly doesn't disgrace himself, Clinton usually looks better-prepared to respond to questions.
I don't mean this to be an attack on Obama alone; to some extent all the presidential candidates are straw men (or women) propped up by a team of underlings who write their speeches and co-ordinate press events, advertising, and all the rest, effectively reducing the candidate to an actor of a kind. However, if the only really great thing you can say about Senator Obama is that he's an electrifying public speaker with an inspiring message of hope, you would do well to take a step back and consider just how little that means. In effect, you're complimenting his staff and the work that they do. I have no faith in Americans' ability to recognize this truth, but I would be greatly impressed if some of us did.
I don't understand Tom's point (#4)- should voters be going for the politically incorrect option?
I still think you've all got the wrong Peter Sellers' presidential comparison, it's not from that sketch Gideon referenced, nor is it Chance the Gardner.... it's from Dr. Strangelove: (Except from the Wikipedia entry):
For his performance as President Merkin Muffley, Sellers flattened his natural English accent to sound like an American Midwesterner. Sellers drew inspiration for the role from Adlai Stevenson, [11] a former Governor of Illinois, who had been the unsuccessful Democratic nominee in the 1952 and 1956 presidential elections.
Here's hoping that Obama, is more successful than Stevenson with his campaigns (and for that matter also moreso than Muffley in preventing impending global crisis). For some reason, I am picture the scenes with Muffley trying to calmly to explain things to the drunken Russian premier and the warmongering general... not sure what this says about either of Obama's competition.
I do think that it's a bit naive of people to think that Barack Obama's campaign is somehow fooling the American public, or that his rhetoric appeals mostly to juveniles.
Is his message a bit light, yes. Is his voting record a bit short, yes. Is he still cleaner than anyone else in the race, oh heck yes.
The Clinton's..scandal after scandal and a serving of perjury and a suspicious death to boot.
McCain, a member of the Keating Five and the S and L scandals, and while the recent Times artical implied a romantic relationship with a lobbyist, no one seems to realize that it's got PLENTY of proof that he did cave to lobbyists again. And he just voted to exempt the CIA from blame for torturing people despite having been a POW. No integrity whatsoever, just another old, rich, politician.
I'm 40,my mother is 60, and my father is 64 my husband is 31,his mother is 52, and his father is 54, my best friend is 26,her father and mother are in their late 50's, my daughter is 15 (and hopping mad about not being able to vote), I have two more friends in their early 30s, and one in his mid 50s.
We all like Barack Obama. And we are listening (Twenty debates worth of listening actually...).
Several of us have never bothered to register before as it didn't really seem worth the effort just to vote for the "barely" lesser of two evils, some of us have always voted, and several of us have always voted Republican.
Oh, and did I mention we're reading all about it all over the blogosphere, um..even on foreign news sites like say the 主播大秀.
"So is that the approach for the debate as well? Might he just roll with the punches? Might he talk about "campaigns we can be proud of when we look back on them" as he did at his press conference this morning?"
It's hard to imagine anyone even asking this question at this point in the nomination process. His campaign has revolved around "rolling with the punches" and, as we saw once again tonight (and easily foresaw at that), his "roll with the punches" demeanor is one of the central pieces in explaining his stong, almost dominating presence both on the debate stage and in the national area in general, at least as of late.
The accusations of his platform being full of vacuous rhetoric stemmed from the early part of the campaign in which he was unfortunately lacking in substance. If anyone has paid any attention to either his bigger speeches or his debate points, his stump has expanded greatly and has as much of significance behind it now as Sen. Clinton's. I don't know how many of the people commenting here are from the US, and how many are UK/other. It is important to recognize the feeling of disillusionment with both the political process, and with the "dynasties" of recent years. We are mired in a war that is vastly unpopular, and our chief executive is not exactly brilliant or charismatic. Hillary Clinton's campaign is running with the slogan of realism--the only time I have heard of a campaign whole-heartedly attacking optimism--at a time when most of the country is ready for a drastic change for the better. What is even more, her husband spend much of the campaign attracting greater attention than Sen. Clinton herself, prompting the concern of the degree of her independence.
Considering this quite pervasive sentiment throughout the states, the effectiveness of Obama's rhetoric should not come as a surprise. Nor should one be amazed by the efficacy that his "roll with the punches" principle displays. His campaign, and its ideals (or, strategy, if you're skeptical), are working, and are, at least in my opinion, admirable. And furthermore, the most important point of all is that he does exhibit a strong grasp of the issues; this criticism that was once rather valid is now removing itself more and more into the realm of propaganda.
#15
"Obama has had a lifetime of experience witnessing to who he is in the most effective way because he was born into minority low income status."
Sorry to burst your bubble but he had a pretty comfortable middle-class upbringing.
#15
"Obama has had a lifetime of experience witnessing to who he is in the most effective way because he was born into minority low income status."
Sorry to burst your bubble but he had a pretty comfortable middle-class upbringing.
Comming from outside and seeing these debates it seems voters are ready to gamble as people usually do on stocks with a hope of profit. One side, a practical lady with issues at her finger tips, ready to take on and other side a voice with hope. Need to see whether voters get swayed by the pied piper of hamlin or they wake up to their reality. One thing is sure, there is no quick fix to the real problems that's facing the entire nation. Hope u all choose the best who can really deliver.
No I dont think Mr. Obama gave any Peter Seller answers on the topic, he is under enough pressure as it is right now but I strongley believe when he becomes President we will no longer see that kind of behavior in our country or any other countrys, that is why we need this man as President his racial background is more likely to unite people than to divide them, as far as I'm concerned it cant happen soon enough!
OBAMA 08 !!!!
I fear Obama intentionally uses vague, lofty rhetoric to keep people from asking for specifics such as "Specifically, how do you plan to enact plan a?" or "How will you pay for plan b?".
If you are a fan of Southpark, I would suggest that he uses the "Wookie" defense all too often and with more success than makes me comfortable.
Maybe just maybe,the American people are just sick of the same old status quo. I sense that we are in the midst of a change in America that may be as profound as the change of the 1960's decade and folks, Obama's at the head of the parade.
The problem with the "fierce urgency of now," is that we have a system designed to delay even the most urgent things.
When not delayed, they are compromised on and passed piecemeal or in diluted form.
Obama has not explained how he will actually effectively act on any of his goals.
The onus is on him, not Clinton, because he has made the most inspiring promises without acknowledging that there may be fierce battles with those who don't agree with him. He seems to think that his power of persuasion is greater than the entrenched interests he will face...History is against him in this respect.
Iam thousands of miles away from America BUT i have been enjoying the Obama politics .I think looking at how people have mobilised after Obama, only the doubters and believers of the past will remain sceptical on what Americans want for the future .
Obama, if I remember my history correctly, has more legislative experience than Abraham Lincoln (they share a state).
The problem, looking at things from the UK, that Mrs Clinton has is Bill. The Republicans hate the Clintons with a will. Those who don't want to vote for Snr McCain, to oppose Mr Obama, would do so to prevent the Clintons regaining the White House. My guess is that this may be playing on the minds of Democratic voters as they select their candidate.
One thing that I have really liked about the Obama campaign is the way they have used web 2.0. It is just exciting to get Obama's updates on twitter, myspace etc.
It simply beggars belief that Democrats are going to do the very thing the Republicans most want them to do : nominate a man whose record (or rather the lack of one) will be set in stark contrast to the record and experience of John McCain, and who even if he wins is just as likely to get re-elected for a second term as Jimmy Carter was! But hey, he looks so cute and speaks so well, he must be a great President right?
Good lord. When did talking about hope become a bad thing?
Isn't it the cornerstone, upon which is placed responsible policy and hard work?
The electorate (and most of the posters here) have become jaded complainers who find fault at any cost, and therefore drive elections into the hands of men and women with the best (i.e. most deceitful) spin doctors.
Stop talking about his, or Hillary's, speaking style and start listening to the policy those words are framing.
Permit me to quote Ronald Reagan, a politician who did both some good and also some harm. "It's morning in America again." From the vantage point of Canada, I and colleagues can feel the electricity in the air in America, an America tired of cynicism, tired of loss of certitude, tired of loss of rectitude, hungry for change and a return to idealism. It cuts all across the political spectrum, though the far and extreme reactionary political right does not recognize it yet. Ironically, Obama is addressing some of their OWN complaints about today's America..!! I have traveled extensively in America, two members of my family fought in Operation Desert Storm, on in the Army as a bomb disposal expert, the other as a grunt in the Marines. I have numerous relatives and friends all over the states, and I was a television producer in Hollywood for one year. Listen up, world, the Winds of Change are blowing in America, and I for one say, in the words of the negro spiritual, "Than You Jesus, thank you.."
The thing about Obama is that he is refreshingly engaged. We feel as if he's actually seeing us, hearing us, interested in us... He doesn't come across as a politician; he comes across as a real person who has the positioning to make a difference on our behalf. I'll vote for that stance, attitude any day. He's real and he cares---and that cannot be faked.
Obama offers hope for doing things a bit differently, to benefit us ALL. Why in the world should we EVER do as we have done if as we have done has not yet worked well enough to suit us? If other politicians would understand that the old ways should be exchanged for something new, they could all put their heads together and come up with something that gets us back on the right track. It starts with setting aside personal stakes (that means individual, local, state, business, etc.)and focusing, instead, on what's good for all of us as a single whole.
"The groundwork for greater intervention in the economy and indiviual lives" - not to mention in other countries lives - was laid long ago. Madison and Hamilton and most of the other founders took a pretty dim view of popular democracy from below in practice, regardless of some of their more showy idealistic public pronouncements. As Madison once described it with a little more private candor, "democracy is the most vile form of government...democracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention: have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property" and "Landholders ought to have a share in the government to suppoert these invaluable interests... to protect the minority of the opulent against the majority." This aim of government, to serve power and property hasn't changed much over the centuries, even though the means of achieving it has with the rise of mass media and public relations. The economy too, has changed greatly since then and today there are more pronounced class divisions in American society and the world and a more extreme concentration of wealth and power in the hands of the "opulent minority". It is this narrow class that "runs the country" and the president is their public face, there to maintain public order and foster a favorable investment enviornment. So it may be a "distortion" to say the president single-handedly "runs the country" but only insofar as it omits the other members of the "opulent minority", public and private (who often shuttle back and forth between poitions of public and private power). The corporate press of course plays its supporting role so its not a misstatement when they routinely unquestioningly assert that the president is running the country - and by extension the other priveleged elites who put him in power. What's interesting is the reaction of those among the "public at large" (i.e. those gritty working folks) who feel understandably aggrieved at such a notion. But they needn't be surprised, once it becomes apparent that America is not a democracy at all but what is academically termed a "polyarchy". In his illuminating book, Promoting Polyarchy, Wm. Robinson succintly defines polyarchy as "a system in which a small group actually rules and mass participation in decision-making is confined to leadership choice in elections carefully managed by competing elites". And when the sham elections are over, the "imperial president" and the "opulent minority" RUN THE COUNTRY! (and the world).
Wake up America! The naivety of the average voter across the spectrum of race, gender, and education is astounding. That you all fall for vacuous rhetoric from a smooth talking fabricated politician is dumbfounding. You can see through Obama from the moment he opens his mouth. But I am not surprised. This generation of non thinkers(educated or un-educated) who are looking for simple quick escapes from reality to assuage their woes, are unfortunately the ones who show up at these rallies eating up the empty rhetoric being fed to them. Get Real and grow up! You have tough choices to make. You need real people with real experience to solve your problems. Hillary Clinton is not perfect but she is intelligent, experienced and hard-nosed. Personally if it were my problems that needed fixing I would take her in a heart beat. And to have Bill Clinton as a back up you can only count yourselves as lucky. He was one of the best presidents you ever had with one of the best economic records. What else would you want for experience in troubled economic times? Duhhh! Reality or escape from reality. The sooner you face the hard realities, the sooner you solve them. Get over your naivety America. Grow up and get real.