February 3, 2008

I Choose Rocky II

My friends have been trying to get me to believe Obama’s vision and convince me he is the real deal. They, like me, believe in politicians who dare to propose drastic change, who dare to have a vision. Optimism is easy to come by. The combination of optimism, conviction, and the determination to see it through, is pretty rare.

I believe in visionaries. I always have. Michael Ignatieff was a visionary. That is why he was so polarizing. People didn’t like where he was going. Gerard Kennedy was a visionary as well, very inspiring for those who believed in him, and very mind-numbingly terrifying for those who saw things a different way.

The other end of this spectrum is the pragmatist. I detest pragmatic politicians. They like to talk a whole lot and do nothing. Pragmatists propose ideas which the consensus can agree to. Pragmatists are reactive in proposing policy while visionaries are proactive.

I began the democratic nomination supporting Hillary Clinton, because I always respected Hillary for all that she did during the first two years of Bill Clinton’s administration. The woman who DARED go against the health insurance industry. The woman who polarized the Republican Party so much, it brings a smile to my face. (I know she failed, but at least she tried) A woman with a vision. A woman who wanted to break barriers, who would not stand behind her husband, but alongside him. No Barack, this was no tea party.

The 1993 Hillary showed me she has what it takes to take on everybody. Support for national health care is higher in the US than ever, and she is willing to finish what she started 15 years ago. That is who many Democrats see in Hillary Clinton. They see 1993 Hillary. They see that she is back. They know she took her beating and that she is back to finish what she started. It is hard. She has been fighting this long fight for a long time; those tears in New Hampshire were probably not the first ones, nor will they be the last.

The new generation of American democrats sees Hillary Clinton as a robot, a prisoner to the focus groups. Hillary did learn something from her husband. She learned that doing something was better than doing nothing. She learned that portraying a decade of American history as a fraud would not help the country become unpolarized, especially when the decade isn’t over. “I told you so” is not a good way to unite a country. That is the definition of experience, and the young people so eager to shit all over the Clintons should take notes, because this is what Barack Obama lacks in spades.

Barack Obama is also a visionary, very heavy in the rhetoric and a man who never said anything in the context it would eventually be taken in by his opponents. He wants Americans to believe they can accomplish great things, to motivate the American people to reach for something more. He does not dare ask why. He dares ask why not! The US has not seen anyone this bold since John F Kennedy, which is why is was Ted Kennedy, mayor Quimby himself, who convinced me the Democrats could not lose in 2008.
Obama believes that the American people can reach for a new level and they are selling themselves short. He is right. The US won the cold war with sheer determination. Obama wants to bring this unmotivated new generation of Americans to a new level with him. He knows where he is going. He wants us to go with him. I may be skeptical, but I want to go with him…

See, this is why either one is a good nominee for the Democratic Party. They are both champions. They both believe they can win. They DARE to believe. They DARE to take the American people to the next step. In the end America wins either way.

I am happy Barack Obama got this far and I am happy to see him go toe to toe with Hillary but after a very tough fight, I believe he will lose, learn from his experience and be stronger to bring his vision forth, hopefully in eight years time.

I support Hillary Clinton because she knows when to fight right-handed if necessary. She has seen victory taken from her and willing to fight back one more time, knowing she has it in her to go the distance and win.

"Every once in a while a person comes along who defies the odds, who defies logic, and fulfills an incredible dream." Democrats just need to decide which Rocky they want, Rocky I or Rocky II. Either way, they should fight and be proud of what they are fighting for. Either way they get a champion.


5 Commentaires:

Blogger burlivespipe a dit...

I have to agree with you re: Hillary and Obama. Obama has an electrifying presence but has little depth to his resume. That doesn't mean he couldn't be the right person for the job -- he's had less chance to be corrupted or whittled down. Hillary has been there.
And you had to reintroduce the liberal leadership race, didn't you? I see some of what you saw in Ignatieff, but its also where he's been -- standing with George on Iraq -- that proved why I couldn't support him. It was his Chappaquiddick. That's what made him terrifying for many of us who believe the Liberal party has to be a broader tent. Kennedy, frightening? You're joking right? He had a little of that Obama effect, without the electrifying speeches. He offended few, excited a number of people. Kennedy needs time to polish his ideas, his place in the federal arena. But frighten? You 'fiscal imbalance' types scare easily.

2/04/2008 3:44 a.m.  
Blogger Christopher Young a dit...

It's not a choice between Rocky I or Rocky II.
It's a choice between Rambo IV - a movie you already know what to expect from, and that you already know if you'll like it and how much you'll like it - and Juno, that brand new fresh movie which you'ren ot totally sure of, but that could possibly charm you completely.
It's between safe and mildly boring, and risqué and possibly a turning point.
I'm taking the risk.

2/04/2008 2:29 p.m.  
Blogger Chuckercanuck a dit...

oh, with all the Rocky talk, I thought you were coming out in favor of McCain.

-- a friendly neighbourhood McCaniac.

2/08/2008 3:09 p.m.  
Blogger Danno a dit...

Geez, do you realize you just left a blog about absolutely nothing? Barack Obama keeps talking about change and has charisma, but so did "The Rock" in his WWF days. When I hear Obama, I don't hear how he's going to restore the Constitution, or how he's going to end our empire that's collapsing our economy around the world, or how he's going to restore sound money or end our rate of 10% inflation destroys our savings each year...all I hear is "Change, yes, let's try a little harder, we're Americans and can do annnything!" Obama has a presence, but that's about it. He has no intention of doing anything except bombing Pakistan, something even the current oval office idiot isn't considering.

And, as for Hillary's accomplish? Feel free to peruse:


Not saying McCain's any better, but Kucinich and Paul were and are the only true candidates that would have brought positive change to America. We're in a deep recession, and headed towards a Depression...coming soon to theatres near you.

2/12/2008 5:25 p.m.  
Blogger JimTan a dit...

Let’s be clear about why dion has to go. It isn’t that dion is the worse communicator in Canada, a poor leader, and doesn’t understand politics. I have said as much months ago.

It isn’t that the LPC doesn’t oppose CPC legislature or won’t fight an election. Dion is being logical. He doesn’t have the issues to take to the people.

Dion has to go because he is unable to create a winning edge. He has failed as a strategist to forge a green alliance with the NDP and Bloc. He could have given them Afghanistan to seal the deal. He has failed as a leader to create a new and better brand for the LPC. And, he has failed as an organizer to revitalize the LPC.

Compare with Barrack Obama. He started as the underdog, and hopelessly outgunned. In six months, he has gained momentum and a movement. He has out-organized the Democratic Party establishment.

He started as a brand and an idea, and firmed up his platform as he went. He started by marketing himself, and an organization now has life of its own. Is this a winning business model?

On the other hand, Dion’s brand and mini-movement evaporated after the Montreal convention. He has not been able to transfer the brand to the LPC, or create a new one.

He may think that he is conserving scarce resources for an election next year. The problem is that the LPC will be even weaker next year under his non-leadership.

Dion has to go.

2/28/2008 1:29 p.m.  

Post a Comment

<< Home