Barack Obama: a leader, not a boss

Barack Obama: a leader, not a boss


Days ago, I figured out why I'm drawn to Barack, heart and mind.

Pretty much all of us work for a boss, sometimes one who's a pretty good manager, but we do what they want since they're the boss.

A good boss or manager can get a job done, but can't motivate more than a relative handful of people at a time, and that doesn't get big jobs done.

Recently, I've developed the unfortunate habit of reading history, seeing that now and then there've been people who moved entire nations. They're usually competent managers, but have some elusive additional ability that makes then what we call leaders.

That includes JFK, Lincoln, Elizabeth I, Victoria, Gandhi, Churchill, and a short list of others that you know.

We need to restore American values to the White House, and to enlist all Americans in that effort; we want to be the good guys again. That takes a leader, and that means Barack Obama.



Allen Laudenslager

Too true. I may not agree with all his positions, but the more important thing for me in a president is vision. They must have a clear vision and be abel to articulate it and to excite people about it. Like Kennedy and the moon shot – he stated the what and left the how to the experts.
If I agree with the general direction, I’ll trust the American legislative process to keep is from going too far afield.


The Clinton camp has tried the "style versus substance" line, but it hasn't resonated, and here's why: Obama uses style as the delivery for his substance. He's a wonk at heart, but knows how to talk to people. He knows how to inspire. Clinton may be mostly right on the issues, but she totally lacks energy, and her politics (starting to be seen more and more as the primary season continues) represent a tired, ineffective way of getting things done.

Manton Reece

No question that Obama has a gift, and he could turn out to be a truly great president. But the reason half the Democratic party remains unconvinced, despite the bad couple weeks for Hillary, is that you can't tell from his past accomplishments how he is going to follow through on the promises, except maybe ethics reform and transparency, which he is clearly passionate about and has results.
With Hillary there is a better sense of what she would get to work fighting for and why her experiences match her policy. Vision matters, but qualifications matter too, and we have real problems that won't be solved easily.
I like your passion though, and I respect that you put words to it.
from Craig: Manton, what possible way can politician show how they'll follow through? What experience does Hillary have? How about her position on ethics reform? According to one of her surrogates, she's against it, perhaps because she owes a number of lobbyists?

Andy Angelos

Agreed Craig. In your studies of historical leaders, you may have also noticed a contrast between business and "movement" leadership skills. When generating or conserving financial value is the nucleus of a task (such as with the current adminstration), different issues become the central focus.
Lincoln, Churchill, JFK, MLK, Gandhi, etc all shared a desire for a variety of freedom. Imagine if MLK led the Civil Rights Movement with the end goal of creating a billion dollar enterprise to support his entourage. Only benefactors would rally to the cause…Using freedom as the central theme, however, and King was able to unite disparate groups through emotion rather than greed.
You should look into struggles and criticisms of Roman and Greek emperors focused solely on supporting their expanding states…the results are disheartening.
Sorry for the rant.


Barack Obama on Immigration
Support granting driver's licenses to illegal immigrants. (Nov 2007)
Illegal immigrants' lack of ID is a public safety concern. (Oct 2007)
Extend welfare and Medicaid to immigrants. (Jul 1998)
Voted YES on comprehensive immigration reform. (Jun 2007)
Voted NO on declaring English as the official language of the US government. (Jun 2007)
Voted YES on allowing illegal aliens to participate in Social Security. (May 2006)
Rated 8% by USBC, indicating an open-border stance. (Dec 2006)

Jimmy D

O.K. I'm 80+years old.
I have seen and because I am a history buff have learned that the the most popular presidents have been by and large the least effective.
The president can not get what the congress will not give him.
It takes experience to do that.
Bill and Hilary Clinton led this nation through the best 8 years of the 80 I have lived.
This isn't a popularity contest nor a youtube skit we are deciding. It is the future of our nation.
History which is the least popular scholastic subject teaches us , "If you don't learn from it you are bound to repeat it".
Don't fight success.
Go with CLINTON.

Jim May

Several forces converge with Barack Obama:
First, he is the self described weird kid with he weird sounding name as he himself said in his historic speech at the Democratic convention in 2004. But he showed then he was a contender and already something of a winner.
Second, he is, of course, black. He is polished and proud and articulate. I am not sorry for stating it like that, but the overall image he portrays is positive unlike the vast majority of black males who push loud, misogynistic rap music on me day in and day out as I hear it from young men driving down the streets in my home city.
Third, and maybe most importantly, his Muslim name and paternal roots demonstrate to the world (!) that we, the United States of America, have found and can choose a leader who who brings all that together. A person who by just being who who is would correct the ugly American-ism of Bush-Cheney and in doing so we regain moral stature we have lost with the rest of the world. By having a Muslim pedigree Obama corrects the divisiveness of these last 8 years.
Fourth, he came out of nowhere and beat the front runner in Iowa. Everyone assumed Hillary Clinton would win by New Hampshire this year. Sadly the race is almost over for her. For Democrats though, we have in Obama a candidate who completely surprised the Republicans. The Republicans were, of course, gleeful for Hillary to win and with her they would again barrage the airwaves until Novemeber with infinite messages of the Clintons' presumed faults and just plain sleaziness.
Interestingly both McCain and Obama I feel sorry for the Clintons. They are both good candidates and have never deserved the scorn they have receives for the last two decades.
Obama surprised the Reublicans. Once he gained a foothold from Iowa people started listening to his message.
In his speeches he mentions the "politics of fear" often. I want him or some other journalist to specify what that means. In the era following Ronald Reagan conservative talk radio fed fear mongering to its key audience againa nd again. The radio talk show blabbermouths of the era weren't unlike Joseph McCarthy with their mentality of "if you're with us, you're against us" midset. They took the view that if he who disagreed with their conservative viewpoint were immoral, sissies or worse.
I have noticed in recent weeks that talk radio and even the Wall Street Journal itself foresee an Obama victory. Partly this is because everyone, myself included, presumed Hillary Clinton would win the Democratic primary.
But Obama's unexpected win in Iowa got folks like me paying attention to him for the first time. And what did we hear?
For one thing I heard a speaker who spoke optimistically about America, America's mission and what we all have to do to make that dream a success. It was a Bill Clinton interview in The Atlantic Monthly around 2000 where the former President said the most optimistic canddiate wins.


I can see myself saying what Stephen said only about a year ago… but now, I see exactly what Stephen wrote clinching the deal for Obama!
I agree that those eight years were magnificent, and Bill probably the best president we've had in my life time… BUT As it was when Bill was the new kid on the block, it is a newer kid, far more vibrant, easily as easy in the driver seat as Bill was, actually I'd argue strenuously that Barack Obama has few peers when it comes to ease and grace. In contrast Hillary lacks by miles the composure Barack has, he may not joke cavellierly as Bill does, but I beleive that's because he is serious about this goal… He's not going after a win for the win's sake as is obvious that Hillary is. Hillary, it seems to me is embarrassed that she might lose and that seems her motivation lately, where Barack is intent on winning because he Truely believes as I do (now) he far better suited to the position. If history has taught us anything, we don't want another recession prone Republican for president!… and we don't want their kind over for a beer at the white house after hours as I suspect may be the case if Hillary gets to bring Bill back in as mere spouse, with his new found close friendship with Bush Senior!… I also shudder as I ponder what Bill might get up to with all that time on his hands back in the White House, considering what he managed to pull off as the President!… We don't need history repeating itself in that department again! It cost the Democrats Eight years of Bush and the country Five Trillion Dollars of surplus squanderred that should have gone into infastructure!!! No… we have an entirely fresh slate in Obama with as much or more charisma and drive as Bill had when Bill was running… If history is likely to repeat the let the next new guy in and let Hillary and Bill stay out to pasture, they've arrived at a place where they are blowing fuses in public over this while Obama remains full of grace and logic. Sooo who do you want across a conference table from some mad delegate from afar?… Someone prone to emotional outbursts with a clearly false, and as of late increasingly tense smile?
Clearly Barack Obama!!!

dan shelton

Rumor has it that if Clinton can't secure the nomination, her intent is to give McCain sufficient ammunition to defeat Obama in the General Election, by bloodying him in the primary process.
This keeps her in the offing for 2012, when she can say "See? You should've gone with ME."
I know it's a theory but remember the Kennedy Family's refusal to endorse Sargent Shriver as a Vice President because it might negatively effect a Ted Kennedy run four years later?
Stranger things have happened.
I'm with Obama… 100%
Thanks for helping, Craig.

Comments are closed.