he is certainly of a different calibre than any other world leader at present.
his most herculean task will be to put his own house in order. after that, the world could be his oyster.
that job will take his two terms to accomplish, but meanwhile any intelligently sustainable move to do so will do much to inspire and encourage similar and parallel moves internationally.
nice diary, frank, written from the heart. ~Government budget deficits are not nearly as dangerous as the deficits we have created in vital and complex natural systems.~ Naomi Klein.
we've never had a world leader before, the concept is cartoonish, it implies a level of consciousness and responsibility that few national leaders attain and practise, so it's a blank slate upon which we can project and affirm what we want.
waht i want in a global leader is remarkably similar to what barack obama endorses.
i found his speech 4 years ago at the dem convention too fluffy, too glib, but what turned me around was reading his autobiography, and watching him surf the challenges and hatred thrown at him throughout the campaign.
the way he paced himself was impressive, too.
this period between election and inauguration is horrible, i find. i wish it could be eliminated.
crippled by the situation from really leading, he has to watch gwb act out his last juvenile pathologies, when the people have spoken...
this makes him much more of a lame duck than gwb, imo.
stupid system.
matt taibbi has an interesting take on obama, saying all he did was not be a dick, while the competition worked itself into an undignified lather or was revealed as criminally incompetent...
what i like most about him is the relationship of his ego with the rest of his mental architecture, it's just one of the bearing walls, the others being a big vision, a tranquil faith, and a desire for co-operation and harmony between nations.
the narrowness of the gap between the scylla of disappointed lefty support (fisa) and the charybdis of righty howls of unamericanism took a master mariner to squeak through, one false move and he would have been an interesting blip in history.
he's young, inexperienced, but has the gravitas and groundedness of a man twice his age, and the times we live in, and the faith so many have in him will for more experience upon him than most folks would ask for or have a clue what to do to rise to.
it's a miracle, and every day he's allowed to live, firms up the narrative that america, and the world, are ready for a new style of leader. ~Government budget deficits are not nearly as dangerous as the deficits we have created in vital and complex natural systems.~ Naomi Klein.
we've never had a world leader before, the concept is cartoonish
Maybe people are reading more into the term of World leader than I ever intended. In my use/meaning of the term, Gandhi, Roosevelt, Stalin, Hitler, Churchill, Kennedy, Johnson, Reagan, Gorbachev, Mandela etc. were all world leaders in the sense of having a profound influence far beyond the formal borders of their own nation state. Gandhi wasn't even a state leader, and the others had no formal responsibilities beyond their own constitutions/electorates/parties. The term is neither necessarily good or bad (as the above list confirms) and is usually a mixture of both.
When I use the term in relation to Obama it expresses a hope that his influence will result in the ending of some wars, the development of more effective means of international cooperation and conflict resolution, the emergence of more effective global governance structures to deal will global issues - climate change, financial systems, genocide, famine and disease etc.
It doesn't mean that I expect him to become some kind of formal or informal world President. Just that I hope he will be very good US President who will benefit both the USA and the world. This doesn't have to be a zero sum game. In GWB's case it was a zero minus game where both the USA and the World were diminished. Vote McCain for war without gain
i agree. ~Government budget deficits are not nearly as dangerous as the deficits we have created in vital and complex natural systems.~ Naomi Klein.
He has demonstrated a profound ability to inspire people and to win over skeptics. In order to be successful, he will have to use these abilities to bring a substantial majority of the population along with him in a consensus for a change in the way we see the relationship between the individual and society, the obligations of each to the other, and a new understanding of the realities of the world and of the place of the USA in the world.
Jimmy Carter demonstrated that you cannot just tell the US electorate that our situation has changed and we must adapt to it. Unless the President can make a majority see and accept the facts of the case, he will be simply out bid by the next big lier and denier who comes along. It would be foolish to rule out the possibility of the emergence of a new leader in the mold of Ronald Reagan by 2012 or 2016. The population must be vaccinated against such a catastrophic possibility. The best way to accomplish that is by leading a transformation of the country into a better and more successful society. Accomplishing that would be Obama's greatest legacy. Anything less just sets us up for the next leadership disaster. As the Dutch said while fighting the Spanish: "It is not necessary to have hope in order to persevere."
See How Obama won for an interesting take on Obama's organisation and ego. Of course he will eventually be found to have feet of clay, like everyone else. But it is the manner of doing politics, of building society, of engaging people's hopes and dreams which can endure. notes from no w here
A couple of years as President will screw him up anyway: I don't believe it's possible to stay grounded in reality to the end of the first term, never mind the second term.
Perhaps stuff like abortion, gays, and assualt weapons in private hands will finanaly be taken off the table and cease to exist as mainstream political issues - or wedge issues used to contra-distinguish major Presidential candidates and parties. Perhaps the issue will become not regulation/deregulation, but what kind of regulation. Perhaps the notion of invading a country because you don't like it's regime will come to be seen as absurd.
We can live in hope, but we must also watch and see whether real change is intended. notes from no w here
"He'll be shot", he said. It is a possibility.
But I believe that the 'awakening' is bigger than the man. The awakening is the only thing that is really important. 10% more compassion. 10% more motivation. 10 % more awareness of the world around. 10% more of anything can tip a balance. You can't be me, I'm taken
Unfortunately, a distinct possibility. Several very amateurish plots already uncovered and people arrested. America has its share of extreme fanatics on the right. All it takes it one successful attempt.
IMO, Obama has the leadership capability to be extraordinary. But he has to survive and he has to conquer an entrenched and disfunctional system... and assuming he does have an extraordinary "vision".
Time will tell.
I do most sincerely hope that the Secret Service is every bit as good at its job as its reputation alleges.
