I was going to write a post on why my admiration for Obama has increased since he became the Democratic Presidential nominee and why its plummeted for McCain since he became the Republican Presidential nominee. And this article in the New York Times sums up my opinion, and more, with writing skills that far exceed mine.
That Obama has changed how campaigns are run – economically, and contentionally – is also a testimony to his leadership qualities – his ability to shake the nation up:
to raise unprecedented amounts of campaign money,
to register for voting in numbers we have not seen in a while,
not using ill-founded slander as his chief campaigning strategy as McCain is,
is already the beginning of the Change, Obama promised, We Can Believe in. Yes, the Times-they-sure- are A’ Changing.
This response to the article is very insightful, and I completely agree:
“…. Why do so many see the good manners and stepping above the fray of Obama as passivity or naivete?….
Passivity? No. Strength and determination. The angry and aggressive are often though to be strong, but if their anger comes from being acted upon, it can be seen to be a kind of passivity, a kind of emotional submission to outside forces. The man who can listen well and change without anger once he comes to a better understanding of something or who steps back and refuses to become angered by the misdirected slings and arrows coming his way, is not a passive man who simply submits to outside forces, but one who examines them and thoughtfully determines how to incorporate them into the grand scheme of things. That’s the Obama I see.”