‘Yes, We Can’… Do What?

• subscribe to print magazine

• stay in touch with our email newsletter

  Subscribe to our regular weekly e-mail newsletter. It's packed with updates on recent and upcoming stories, events, campaigns and things every progressive should be informed about.

   

• email this article to a friend

  Your Name Your Email Recipient Email

  Personal message Thought you might be interested in this article from In These Times.

   

  Please help us prevent spam by verifying the word you see in the image above

  Send to multiple recipients. Just separate each email address with a comma.

• Reader Comments (3)

  Page 1 of 1 pages

  Politicians use abbreviated comments like we need a change because as a society all we can handle are the sound bit comments. By leaving their comments open and vague, the comment is open to interpretation by each individual. Each person that hears the comment can say to themselves that candidate “A” wants change and I want change therefore,  we must both want the same change. If a candidate actually went into their specific plans they would alienate people and that alienation would almost surely lead to them not being elected. I do however hope that in the future we can get away from the sound bit comments and make candidate values and beliefs more easily accessible to everyone. Thank you for the interesting article.

  Posted by supra on Mar 23, 2008 at 12:13 AM

  This article is a red herring.  Anyone who wants to know more specifics about what Obama (primarily quoted) is standing for needs only to go to his very complete website.  Stump speeches are to get people moving and logistically just cannot be used to lay out a candidate’s entire platform.  A brief outline of the candidates’ positions can be garnered from the debates.  Just how many people do you think would stay still for a four hour exposition of all the candidates’ positions? 

  You cannot blame the candidate if the citizens are too lazy to go online and find out what the candidate is running on.  Since the extensive use of the Internet began, it is easier than ever to learn the details of candidates’ positions.  We used to have to read the candidate’s lit, and call his/her office (if we were lucky and someone picked up)  to clarify any unanswered questions. 

  And there is also the cogent point that Obama made, that the problem isn’t the dearth of good ideas.  There are a plethora of those around.  As he put it “Washington is the place good ideas go to die”.  What matters is what a candidate’s background and behavior say about his/her integrity—who would be more likely to stand up against powerful interests and come through for the people when push comes to shove.  After all, our current President ran on a platform of no military adventurism or expensive worldwide policing, and we’ve seen what good that specificity did.

  Posted by lauraliberal on Mar 23, 2008 at 6:19 PM

  Very nice. I was reading this week’s Time today and very similar thoughts were just swirling in my head.
  “The media remain so entrenched in and completely absorbed with celebrity culture that even a presidential campaign gets reported on as though it’s the run-up to the Oscars” I think that’s the bottom line.
  It seems that what we have today is two completely different and independent universes of discourse in regard to public affairs, namely, the universe of discourse of the mainstream media, with its usual sensationalism and hollow prose, and the –often dark and pessimistic- universe of serous news and analysis. 
  In These Times is usually an instance of the latter discourse. Usually; that is except for times when it runs articles such as Laura S. Washington’s “The Nadir of Nader” which was as ridiculous as your average CNN piece.

  Posted by dmarandi on Mar 26, 2008 at 8:34 AM

  Page 1 of 1 pages

• register a new account »Posting Security

  To participate in our forums, please register for a free account.

  Username Password

    Remember me
  

  Retreive lost password »

Also by Cassandra West

• ‘Yes, We Can’... Do What?