So many people have referred to Obama as "transformational." This was happening already in the Primaries. When it was mocked at times. Now I’m seeing this more and more. Powell referred to Obama as transformational. And I’ve seen this as well in some of the newspaper endorsements this week. The term is becoming associated with the essence of Obama. No longer mocked.
I’m wondering what this means to people. To you. To me. It seems to address a quality in the man. But also a quality in the man’s ability to impact others. To inspire. To draw from us our better selves.
This thread is an invitation to search your heart and soul: How is Obama a transformational figure? For you. For us. The nation. The world. How do we see this man? And how is that "experience" transformational?
(I’ve cross-posted this over at TPM. Because I think it’s a very worthwhile exercise to mull this over. And to do it as a kind of group process. In a couple of places, not just one.)
11 Comments
Spotlight
Support this site!
Subscribe to the newsletter
Advertise on Firedoglake
Send
us your tips
Make us your homepage
About The Seminal
Advanced search
As a SOCIALIST!!! Yes, a transformationa to the WORST! As Sir Winston Churchill we said ‘SOCIALISM IS THE PHILOSOPHY OF THE IGNORATNS”. There’s no doubt we habe become a country of ignorants.
Jenny is right! We “habe” become a country of ignorants, and she is a prime example!
You really made me chuckle here!
For me, Obama has the political posture to set our course for the next 4 years in a positive way. The economy, the enviroment, our energy plan, our treatment of other countries, peace instead of war. He’s standing on the edge and go either way. My hope is he transforms this nation into a nation of laws, defined by our Constitution.
WayneC
Not transformational to me. He seems typical of one of the standard pol types, who exudes confidence & promises the world, but his rhetoric is not matched by his policies or advisors. I stick with my initial impression: he makes a good speech.
Just a little harsh. Maybe you should wait and see what he actually does once he gets into the White House, he may positively surprise you.
Forecasting was my profession. It’s a conditioned reflex.
It is interesting in your call to wait before passing judgement you present no evidence as to why his prez performance will be different from the policies he has announced and the advisors who surround him.
it’s always a good ideal to be open to new information and willing to reconsider our assessments. but likewise it makes sense not to ignore all the evidence we already have. looking at that evidence (fisa, lies, advisors, bailout), all i see are reasons to agree with ecahn.
if you have evidence to the contrary, i’d love to know about it – but asking me to ignore the evidence in front of me and “wait” doesn’t cut it for me. ymmv.
I think Powell’s use of “transformational,” was aimed primarily at Americans who are not 100% European American, especially those who had ancestors who were slaves. As others have already opined, I think Obama’s ascent in the short run will hurt them. White supremacists will use Obama’s success against them, “if he can do it, why can’t you.” (The partial answer is obvious, Obama had no ancestors who were slaves.) In the long run, I agree with Powell that Obama’s Presidency (hoping he actually wins) has heavy symbolical value and hope for Americans who are not 100% European American. (I think very few of them consider Obama to be “black.” They know he’s not. They’re eager to vote for him, because he’s not 100% European American.)I think a window on progress may be singles ads, “SWM seeking SWF.” If we see a decrease in the incredibly casual acceptance of ethnicity as a pre-condition for courtship, I think that’s a sign of progress.
I think secondarily Powell aimed “transformational,” at Americans who are 100% European American. It is “transformational,” for them in that they’re going to cede the Executive Branch to someone who is not 100% European American. As HRC proved, that’s extremely difficult for a lot of Americans who are 100% European American in both parties.
In terms of the Executive Branch and many other venues, we’re still waiting for this “transformation,” when it comes to gender. WRT sexual orientation, we’re even further behind.
Except for his Iraq vote, I see nothing “liberal/progressive” about Obama. He was simply the middle-of-the-road Democrat, who won the party’s nomination in 2008. I think he’ll react to the political landscape the same way Reid, HRC, Pelosi, and Hoyer react. It’s our responsibility as liberals/progressives to change that landscape. I think Jane Hamsher, and other liberal leaders really paved the way for this “transformation” with the primary defeat of JoeLie. I think they deserve the adjective “transformational.”
Me three. FISA and “overheated campaign rhetoric” really burns me.
Even though Obama’s a moderate dem, I still have some hope, e.g. that we can have something better than a $5,000 health plan (minus employers insurance), an extension of the war in Iraq, etc.
correction @10 Achem I mean an end to the war in Iraq, as opposed to McCain’s extension.