Collegiate Times

Great article Erika! I might add that uniting the country is not a good thing. Diverging viewpoints are essential to growth and health of a nation. Thinking too much alike makes only one path valid, which is simply dangerous. With a single-minded nation, it's then easy to make any group you wish look like 'bad guys' (or bad girls) and oust them. England and Australia did that to gun owners, and now they are a voiceless disarmed people. While you may not like the Second Amendment now, rest assured that you will miss it badly if it goes away!

you are a moron

Great article! It was extremely well written! Obama has already started backtracking. During his acceptance speech, he said something to the fact that "We might not get it done in one year. In fact, we may not accomplish it in one term." That was the beginning of a potential downfall. However, for the sake of America, I wish him the best. I will be watching Jan. 20th because I want to see and hear what America (not me) elected as president. Even though he may not have been my pick, he is our president. As an American, I will give him my support grudingly, of course.

That doesn't make it right. They've sold themselves to the people with all the rhetorical BS they can muster, and the people eat it up. On the other hand, all we have to judge these liars by are their platforms, so if they aren't going to honor them then why do we even bother voting?

That article made no sense.....so then everything McCain "promised" in his election could be looked at the SAME way...don't make this a democrat v republican thing (I'm neither by the way)....you are unbelievably subjective. The president gives a State of the Union address and is the best lobbyist to Congress. Now, to say that he doesn't have say in legislation is just ignorant. Yes, the President doesn't write legislation, but he was voted in by the majority of the Country, and they believe in his plan. This means that Congress has to listen to him, and they will.... You don't like change.gov? The fact that now information flow is faster than ever. The fact that a President has incorporated web 2.0 into the government (facebook's co-founder did this for him)......rather than a radio address of the week (see George Bush), we get to see a Youtube video and there is even a place where Obama lets the users say what they want....TALK ABOUT EMPOWERMENT... You know what, I didn't think that Obama had the greatest policies in the world, but imagine a world where we all wanted to help our country.... So, this article was very counter-productive and out of bad taste...

First, Wow, this column appears in an opinions section. I, for one, am pleased that the CT finally employs an opinions columnist from the right side of the spectrum to balance out the offerings we've grown accustomed to from the left side of the spectrum over the years. To demand that an opinion columnist embrace her topic with objectivity is to demand the impossible - the very nature of one's opinion NECESSITATES a subjective viewpoint! The President, per the Constitution, has no direct control over the actions of Congress - and while he serves as the chief lobbyist as you so aptly point out, there is a MAJOR and FUNDAMENTAL difference between lobbying for particular legislation and actually being able to introduce that legislation for voting. The President may wield a lot of power in terms of coercion of members of Congress, but at the end of the day his powers are limited beyond the scope of what most Americans believe them to be. The President, Constitutionally, can actually DO very little - regardless of how visionary he is or claims to be.

I'd consider myself empowered, by the way, if I was assured that Sen. Obama actually read each and every comment posted on his site. The fact of the matter is, he doesn't. And as a consequence of that, the ability of 'the hoi polloi' to change policy is really no greater than it has been in the past. The difference? Obama uses the internet where previous generations used telephones, the pony express, couriers, and the like. Even so, Obama isn't quite to be congratulated for 'bringing the Presidency to the 21st century - ' I'd chalk that honor up to internet blogging. Opening a website or slew of websites gives politicians the ability to stave off REAL investigative journalism (usually done by people who are not members of the press, by the way) by dissemenating their information more rapidly. The fact that many people don't listen to the radio anymore isn't an indication that such a medium needs to stop being used to communicate, by the way - else, we could just get rid of the postal service because the majority of people have phones and email.

Kyle, I wrote the Wow article.....yes it's a subjective piece...my point is that is made no sense..... Why are you so negative? Does he read every one? Heck no - he has people and probably an online quality system that sorts through them. Do you go to that site ever? You'd know that Tom Daschle and the Health Care committee responded to user comments in a video message back. Radio has nothing to do with postal service - that is needed, for we still send packages. They actually are needed EVEN more with the emergence of Ebay and other online outlets where shipping is involved.... The radio isn't the fastest way to relay knowledge. To reach the most amount of people the most effective and EFFICIENT way is through the internet - and he is using one of the most highly trafficked site out there (YouTube)to do it....that is LIGHT years ahead of what George W did...we are in a technological age....adaptation here Kyle... Give the man a shot - help him for once..... Obama can say "We need this done" and I guarantee that thousands of constituents will e-mail or send a letter to their representative because Obama inspires people (see the Inauguration with 3-5 mil expected)to take action. To say that his policies can't happen because he doesn't do the legislation aspect is just....wrong.

The point is that he can only INDIRECTLY influence legislation, regardless of how inspirational he may or may not be. Personally, I don't find him to be particularly inspirational - or at least not any more than your standard motivational speaker. I generally don't score people who have lots of charisma and little substance with very high marks because those people tend to believe that they know better than I do what is best for me. The postal service is actually NOT necessary due to the effectiveness and efficiency of businesses like FedEx, UPS, and others, which perform the same duties as USPS but often with greater speed and superior reliability. Lastly - I'd just like to point out that if you go to YouTube to get your daily news, you're already hurting in your understanding of daily events. Television, not the internet, still remains the primary communicative medium for any sort of direct relationship between politicians and their constituents because it is more intimate than the 'file cabinet' style which constitutes most informational websites. It's not like previous presidencies DIDN'T use the 'net at all, by the way.

Our financial markets are failing, the auto industry is a mess, people are losing their jobs, wages are stagnant, and all conservatives want to do is blame Obama. The conservative message, I'm sorry, is dead and needs life support. And to Kyle, the opinions page is meant to be subjective but it also must be balanced and this article is clearly tipping the scale in one direction.

It's not very patriotic to ask questions Erika, you should stand by your president even if you don't agree with his policies. Isn't that what the Bush administration always said? Or does that not go both ways?

Kyle, Indirectly or directly - he can influence and does more than anyone. Regardless if he inspires you, there has never been a President that inspired so many people to take action (see Record Voter turnout and people crying with tears of joy and running the streets and EXCITED about politics). With 3-5 mil expected for Inauguration, you better believe that Congress will listen to everything he says - they have to because their representatives will make them.... USPS is still what a lot of people use. Actually, if you go to http://www.usps.com/financials/cra/welcome.htm, you will see that they still run on a SURPLUS every year. The TV is still a source, yes, but the SPEED of information is MUCH better on the internet, especially through social networks. In this day and age, TV will be streamed online (already is at ustream.tv and justin.tv), and TV, like radio will slowly decline.... My point: We have a technologically savvy President that is prepared to make us compete on a global scale. Watch this video if you want to see how FAST the world is changing:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pMcfrLYDm2U Since you probably didn't watch it, there are some facts like we are the 19th most technologically advanced country, there are more honors kids in India than we have...kids, et cetera. help the cause, be productive, and proactive.

Woah, Kyle, you're everywhere today. You're like a comment rockstar. I award you four internets for bravery.

So what you're telling me, Brandon, is that the fact that Obama plays on gimmicks means that he is to be congratulated somehow? I don't get my news from YouTube, I get it from news websites and blogs which link to them (AP news, Reuters, Drudge, CNN, FoxNews, Brietbart, etc.). I simply don't have time to sift through YouTube and all the crap therein for something of substance - because there isn't much. The fact that his campaign made use of technology doesn't make other Presidents less technology savvy - but you have to consider also the rate at which technology has advanced. To insinuate, for instance, that Bush was somehow incompetent because he didn't communicate through Facebook would be ridiculous - facebook has existed for only a handful of years. Is there a particular reason why I should care how many honors kids there are in India, by the way? I mean, good for them - but there are also more people in poverty in India than there are in the US. If the Indian model is one you want, I think you might try rechecking your priorities.

And lastly, the ability to influence people is not always a positive thing. Hitler moved millions, Stalin moved millions more. Mao and Guevera, Mussolini and Castro and Milosevic. . . all these leaders knew how to inspire people just as effectively, if not moreso, than Sen. Obama. I reserve my judgment on the man until after he has done something substantial - until then, he's little more than a demagogue.

You won't find balance in an opinions page if you only read one column. I don't disagree with your premise - but your application of that premise doesn't make sense. It's like looking for balance by only considering one side of the scale - if every opinion column devoted equal time to supporting all possible viewpoints, it wouldn't be possible to discern the opinion of the writer and the mission of the column would be lost. And for the record, I'm not everywhere. I woke up at home, and then I went to work, and now I'm home again :)

Kyle, You use the internet - if you go to change.gov, they have the youtube videos. Barack has a CHANNEL on youtube - you don't sift through anything. You type in Barack Obama into youtube or Google, and you will see his personal address to the nation. People spend more time than ever on the internet, which is why you need to harness it. Why is India important? It means that competition is going to increase that much faster. The world is getting smarter. We must strive to compete on a national scale - globalization is happening. You say you won't believe anything until he proves he is worthy. I ask that you assume he is worthy until he proves you otherwise. He is doing all he can to make our country better - you should help the cause. It is sort of like respect: Respect people until they give you a reason not to.

It isn't in any way like respect, quite honestly. Obama's legislative and administrative history is, quite frankly, extremely limited. He has, historically, been a man who makes his decisions based primarily on political pragmatism. I can't give him any credit if he doesn't have anything for which he deserves that credit - and at the moment, he hasn't done anything substantive to affect much of anything in this nation. You make a tacit implication that people who oppose Obama inherently do not want to make the country better - and I'd contend that such an implication is absolutely false. My vision of a better nation is nearly 100% divergent from Sen. Obama's vision - but that doesn't necessarily mean that I am working against progress. The world always has been and always will be a competitive place, and it is the competition from other nations which drives the spirit of American ingenuity. The reason I made the point about India was to demonstrate that there is more to national progress and prosperity than subjective assessments of a population's capacities to 'do stuff.' Unrealized potential is utterly worthless, which is why the American system has proven so successful - it emphasizes creativity and ingenuity by rewarding success.

The internet has already been harnessed as a powerful communicative tool. It isn't as though Obama is the first politician with his own website - far, FAR from it - but personally I think he gives the average citizen false hope by insinuating that every voice is going to be heard due to this more personal communication medium. Seeing Obama on a YouTube video doesn't instill any real pride or passion in me - quite the opposite, actually, because it is (in my mind) further evidence of the unwillingness of the American public to take the time necessary to research, learn, and understand the issues. It's a sound-byte culture, and YouTube communication plays directly into that devastating hand.

I've listened to and read Sen. Obama's speeches. Charismatically delivered, to be sure - but lacking in any real substantive policy. Some people are moved by charisma, perhaps even most people. But I would contend that a charismatic speaker who has nothing to say at the end of the day still says nothing. And that is why, until proven otherwise, I withhold judgment on Sen. Obama's efficacy as a President.

By the way, I should add that I don't advocate that Obama should NOT use all of the communicative means available to him. The point here is that I'm not particularly impressed with the fact that he uses the internet and YouTube as communicative means. The stuff is there, and he's using it - but it doesn't signal any real innovation or novelty. The fact that Bush doesn't use YouTube, for instance, as a means of communication with the public doesn't qualify Obama's use of it as inspirationally groundbreaking in any way. Like I said - I'll decide whether to be impressed or unimpressed, supportive or opposing, when I see some policy happen - and not before.

Kyle, it took me a while to respond... I just want you read this article and reflect..please don't post a response...just reflect http://www.psc.ca/files/2004/2004_12_E_Scott.pdf It is long, but do me a favor...please...please read it....apply it to everyday life.

I read some of the paper, Brandon, but I'm not entirely sure what it has to do with our ongoing discussion. If the point you want me to take away from reading this is self contained in the first handful of paragraphs (i.e., all change starts with a vision), you haven't really convinced me of anything I don't already believe. The point I have tried to make all along is that all politicians are somehow 'visionary,' and the fact that Obama claims to have a vision uniquely his own makes him wholly NON-UNIQUE as a political entity. My point ultimately is that the man hasn't done anything truly noteworthy yet in elected office, with the exception of getting elected to office. But then, why should Obama be entitled to any more credit for his election than any other previous President? They, too, were all elected - but we don't measure the success of a President by what he claims to want to do when he is running for office. I don't buy into the hype he offers because I'm a results-oriented person. I also fundamentally disagree with the vision he has for the American society, but that's a different conversation altogether.

So I guess the point is that, if you feel somehow more likely to 'actively care' about others due to Mr. Obama's speeches and rhetoric, that's perfectly fine. But that cannot translate into an expectation for everyone to feel the same sort of emotional empowerment that you feel . . . if for no other reason than that not every person is motivated by the same factors which motivate you.

Let's see, it's been a month, so that nausea must be morning sickness and I'm guessing some geriatric in Arizona is the father. I guess we're even. I vomited in my mouth at least twice while I read your opinion. All of this anger and sour grapes will eat you up inside. Let it go...let it go...Your boy Georgie threw this country in the crapper and it can't go any lower. And I guess because the wingnuts gave him a pass his entire first year (by blaming 9/11 on Clinton), you'll have to wait at least until November 1998 before you can start moaning with conviction.

...and by that I mean November 2008. Sorry, just reminiscing about the good old times.

...and by that I mean 2009. Ah, what the hell...

Kyle, it had nothing to do with Obama. It was for you to personally reflect....

Right, I understand that. . . .I guess I just don't see why you brought it up as part of this conversation.

I bet Kyle is the sort of kid that when you see him raise his hand in class, you put your head down on your desk because you know whatever he says will be long-winded, pseudo-intellectual, and crazy enough that no one will know what to say in response. He will take the silence to mean that he's won. He will never realize that everyone, whether they agree with his opinions or not, hates him because he never shuts his hole.

I can't control how other people view me, so I don't try to do so. I'm no longer a student, but while I was I viewed class as a time to learn, to challenge my views and challenge the views of those around me, hopefully having mine challenged by them in return. Now, if you resent me for my rhetorical style, or lack thereof, that's certainly your prerogative - but the fact that you (and I'm sure many others) view me in that way doesn't actually have any effect on my life whatsoever. Some people put a great deal of stock in the opinions of other people - and I think that's absolute folly.

Look man, I've been a little angry since the car accident, so I may have been a little harsh. Just cool it with the essays.

Nice to see you using quotes around the word historic to mark the election of the first African American to the office of the presidency. I'm so glad you honor your confederate war "heroes" for fighting to keep slavery alive.

and Ericka, your article isn't really making much of a point. Sounds like sour grapes to me...get used to it (for oh, 8 more years).

Anonymous, every time an election occurs, we're told that it will be the most crucial election that our nation has ever seen. It gets old after a while. Every president's election is a noteworthy event, but after a while you get numb to the embellishment. As for your comment about his race, I seem to recall a certain someone dreaming of a day when a man is judged by the content of his character rather than the color of his skin. Guess we still have a long way to go.

Not only are you incredibly ignorant, your writing is awful. Obama has served exactly 0 minutes in office and you're already "look[ing] toward the next round of presidential elections." What a moron.

People need to look at the bright side and keep hold of their hope for better things to come. At least we are not facing 4 more years of gw or 4 new years of Sarah Palin. Pretty funny that Mr. Encinas claims conservatives have handled the election defeat with aplomb while at the same time yapping about Obama making empty promises during a time prior to Obama actually taking office. Perhaps Mr. Encinas ought to join his conservative brethren in handling the election results with at least some measure of aplomb instead of complaining about things which have not yet come to pass.

I'm always amused by people who use my handle vice getting their own. Sauerkraut, I'd like to call your attention to the fact that Ms. Palin was actually a candidate for VICE President - not President. It would interest me greatly to see on which points of policy she has acted in such a 'scary' manner - that's not a question regarding her personal beliefs, but rather regarding the legislation she has signed and the causes she has championed as a politician. I think you'll find that most of her 'private' causes are generally kept in private, and that he public record actually has relatively little controversy attached to it - at the very least, no more so than Sen. Obama, Sen. Biden, Gov. Blagjovich, Sen. and Mr. Clinton, and a whole host of other prominent politicians. All politicians make empty promises - it's part of the job description - the problem with this election is that so many people acted (and voted) as though Obama's promises were NOT empty - and it seems that he has continually let them down even before assuming office by naming many centrists, some of whom lean considerably to the right, to his high-level cabinet positions. It will certainly be an interesting 4 years - and I'm sure that MS. Encinas will agree on that point.

I think it's fairly amusing how people went after Kyle's stance on Obama just because he is reserving judgement until Obama actually does something. It's better then pissing and moaning that he was elected into office in the first place and is probably more then we could say for the overall reaction if McCain was elected. Waiting for results is actually the best stance for McCain supporters given the outcome. There isn't much that the individual can do now anyway, so I don't know where people come off asking for people to be productive or proactive.

Every presidential candidate has to run their campaign on ideas and promises of which they could never entirely produce if given the privilege of serving in the presidential chair. The fact that Obama campaigned for a year and a half before the economic melt down reared its ugly head should give him even more of an excuse for the necessity to renege on some of the things that he has previously told the American people. Instead of placing blame on a leader before they are even in the White House, we should look first to ourselves and ask why Presidential candidates have no choice but to make so many bold promises and predictions to us throughout the campaign trail. Under this status quo of electioneering, it is inevitable that political leaders will not be able to make good on many things that they were once compelled to promise so as to have a chance at winning their respective election in the first place.