Very little has changed from his ideology as a community organizer right up until he left office. Is it any wonder that he'll become one of the most revered presidents in the American history?

Obama wrote the book himself. That is a good thing. On the other hand, I was actively annoyed with the guy for the first 150 pages or so as it seemed to me that he was all about talking around subjects in order to let us know that he respected both sides’ views. But I stuck with the book and he eventually got around to citing some positions. They are, in general, your basic moderate Democratic views, with maybe a tilt left here and a little right there. We could do worse. He portrays himself as just a regular guy, albeit one with a rather exotic background, having lived in Hawaii and Indonesia, as well as Chicago. He lays it on a bit thick, I thought. Obama is a top notch orator, and he excels at stirring us with a cheerful, balanced view. At times it seemed to me that oratory was the only thing he was about.

He seems much taken with Robert Byrd and Bill Clinton. He tells of meeting Byrd and how Byrd’s advice to him was the very basic notion that it was critical to learn the rules of government. He should pay attention.

I picked up that he disparages the liberal wing of the party. On page 75 he refers to “the MoveOn.com crowd, the heirs of the political counterculture the senator had spent much of his career disdaining. Using the word “crowd” here indicates that Obama shares Byrd’s view. I believe there is more substance to those who support MoveOn. Without pressure from people who have strong beliefs we (democrats) will be condemned to be led by a host of politicians unwilling to stake out strong, progressive positions (see Hilary) and deliver us from this repressive, anti-working-people, anti-environment, anti civil-liberties, pro-theocracy nightmare. One Taliban is quite enough.


Quotes and comments

P 76
One of the surprising things about Washington is the amount of time spent arguing not about what the law should be, but rather what the law is. The simplest statute—a requirement, say, that companies provide bathroom breaks to their hourly workers—can become the subject of wildly different interpretations, depending on whom you’re talking to: the congressman who sponsored the provision, the staffer who drafted it, the department head whose job it is to enforce it, the lawyer whose client finds it inconvenient, or the judge who may be called upon to apply it…the diffusion of power between the branches, as well as between federal and state governments, means that no law is ever final, no battle ever truly finished; there is always the opportunity to strengthen or weaken what appears to be done, to water down a regulation or block its implementation, to contract an agency’s power with a cut in its budget, or to seize control of an issue where a vacuum has been left.

He follows this by pointing out how the Republicans simply ignored all our laws and understandings in applying their wishes to things like Abu Ghraib and Teri Schievo, the same thing they accuse the Dems of all the time. The conclusion is obvious to me, but he is unwilling to go there. There is no law. There is only power.

Addressing the filibuster he notes that it was used for many years by right-wingers to prevent civil right legislation, thus he has ambivalence.

P 82
The threat to eliminate the filibuster on judicial nominations was just one more example of Republicans changing the rules in the middle of the game.

…I would supported the filibuster of some of these judges, if only to signal to the White House the need to moderate its next selections. But elections ultimately meant something…Instead of relying on Senate procedures, there was one way to ensure that judges on the bench reflected our values, and that was to win at the polls…I wondered if, in our reliance on the courts to vindicate not only our rights but also our values, progressives had lost too much faith in democracy.

He conveniently ignores that the right has gleefully prevented Democratic presidents from doing just that. Again, he seems willing to unilaterally disarm against a sociopathic opponent.

P 88
So if we all believe in individual liberty and we all believe in these rules of democracy, what is the modern argument between conservatives and liberals really about? If we’re honest with ourselves, we’ll admit that much of the time we are arguing about results—the actual decisions that the courts and the legislature make about the profound and difficult issues that help shape our lives…If it doesn’t help us to win, then we tend not to like it so much.

P 89
[He talks about the strict constructionist adherents and those who view the constitution as a dynamic entity, saying that he has sympathy for the former, but that he felt he would side with them only when the meaning of the framers was crystal clear regarding the issue at hand, and that when there was no such clarity, he was of the dynamic constutional bent.]


p 92
What the framework of our Constitution can do is organize the way by which we argue about our future. All of its elaborate machinery—its separation of powers and checks and balances and federalist principles and Bill of Rights—are designed to force us into a conversation, a “deliberative democracy” in which all citizens are required to engage in a process of testing their ideas against an external reality, persuading others of their point of view, and building shifting alliances of consent.

P 100
[Byrd’s advice] “Learn the rules,” he said. “Not just the rules, but the precedents as well.” He pointed to a series of thick binders behind him, each one affixed with a hand-written label. “Not many people bother to learn them these days. Everything is so rushed, so many demands on a senator’s time. But these rules unlock the power of the Senate. They’re the keys to the kingdom.”

P 116
I’ve never been entirely comfortable with the term “special interests,” which lumps together ExxonMobile and bricklayers, the pharmaceutical lobby and the parents of special-ed kids. Most political scientists would probably disagree with me, but to my mind, there’s a difference between a corporate lobby whose clout is based on money alone, and a group of like-minded individuals—whether they be textile workers, gun aficionados, veterans or family farmers—coming together to promote their interests; between those who use their economic power to magnify their political influence beyond what their numbers might justify, and those who are simply seeking to pool their votes to sway their representatives. The former subvert the very idea of democracy. The latter are its essence.

P 169
Instead of subsidizing the oil industry, we should end every single tax break the industry currently receives and demand that 1 percent of the revenue from oil companies with over $1 billion in quarterly profits go toward financing alternative energy research and the necessary infrastructure. Not only would such a project pay huge economic, foreign policy, and environmental dividends—it could be the vehicle by which we train an entire new generation of American scientists and engineers and a new source of export industries and high wage jobs.

P 219
Politics is hardly a science, and it too infrequently depends on reason. But in a pluralistic democracy, the same distinctions apply. Politics, like science, depends on our ability to persuade each other of common aims based on a common reality. Moreover, politics (unlike science) involves compromise, the art of the possible. At some fundamental level, religion does not allow for compromise. It insists on the impossible. If God has spoken, then followers are expected to live up to God’s edicts, regardless of the consequences. To base one’s life on such uncompromising commitments may be sublime; to base our policy making on such commitments would be a dangerous thing…Any reconciliation between faith and democratic pluralism requires some sense of proportion. This is not entirely foreign to religious doctrine; even those who claim the Bible’s inherent inerrancy make distinctions between Scriptural edicts, based on a sense that some passages—the Ten Commandments, say, or a belief in Christ’s divinity—are central to Christian faith, while others are more culturally specific and may be modified to accommodate modern life. The American people intuitively understand this, which is why the majority of Catholics practice birth control and some of those opposed to gay marriage nevertheless are opposed to a constitutional amendment banning it. Religious leadership need not accept such wisdom in counseling their flocks, but they should recognize this wisdom in their politics.

If a sense of proportion should guide Christian activism, it must also guide those who police the boundaries between church and state. Not every mention of God in public is a breach in the wall of separation. As the Supreme Court has properly recognized, context matters.

I really did want to give this book four stars. Much of the first half was the same bookish, professorial Obama we've come to know. High-minded and idealistic, the slightest bit out of touch. Then came the more personal chapters, when he talks less about "the nation" and more about his own experiences and values. The chapters on Faith and Race are two of the best I've read, where he reminds us how complex these issues are, and why they require such levelheadedness and nuance to approach. Throughout the book, you can feel Obama's doubts, acceptance of his own shortcomings, and even his internal inconsistencies. In fact, it is this vulnerability and healthy dose of idealism, along with his fundamental decency, which make clear how he captured the dreams of a nation.

Great book! amazing insight and a wonderful read...(paperback!)

What an embarrassment. I can't believe he is actually the standard bearer for the Dems. And the sad thing is his book reveals it. If you are undecided, read this book carefully - it will persuade you to RUN AWAY from this incompetent, yet corrupt, Chicago machine politician who believed his own press.

I initially approached this book with a fairly open mind, but soon enough found myself filled not with hope but boredom. Obama certainly is a smart and likable guy, but his autobiographical meanderings and relatively trite, feel-good messages (e.g. that an advocate of abortion rights and a pro-life doctor can both be basically decent people) did not engage my mind at all. This is not to say that I think Senator Obama has not brought something positive to the public sphere - I think he has had a basically positive influence on politics, and furthermore believe he offers great promise as a leader. As for his book, however, I found it frilly, subtly self-righteous, and, ironically, pretty mundane. I didn't realize that we had ever lost the "American Dream", but if we have, I hope that people will have enough sense to look to themselves, their friends and loved ones, and to time-tested and true principles, and not to another politician promising the world, no matter how intelligent and charismatic he or she may be. That said, having good, basically honorable and decent people like Barack Obama in positions of leadership probably couldn't hurt things.

This book sat on my shelf for years. I do not know why it took so long to read it. He is an excellent author, excelling in story telling and his command of the language. The book is a policy wonker. This is dry at times but critically important for anyone who cares. HIs honesty, intellect and analysis are apparent in each sentence. He leaves room for those who may disagree; however, his position is always supported by a principled evaluation of what is right or most right, given the circumstances confronting us all. This book is still very timely, important and compelling.

In "The Audacity of Hope: Thoughts on Reclaiming the American Dream," Senator Barack Obama offers a message of hope to the cynics that would claim that our country is hopelessly divided and politics has devolved into a power game of little interest to ordinary Americans. Senator Obama believes there are, in fact, ordinary Americans out there that do care about our country, are engaged in politics, and can manage to find common ground with neighbors and friends whose politics or values they may disagree with. I admit, I do not share Senator Obama’s optimism. I am one of those cynics who believes Americans are divided, politics is a game, and it is best to simply avoid people whose politics I don’t agree with. While I may not paint my face blue or red on Election Night, I do keep track of the score, and I don’t care if my side engages in cheap shots or late hits to win; I just hope they do win, even if I remain skeptical that they can actually make a difference. In his book, Senator Obama tries to convince readers like me that there is, in fact, a "new kind of politics" that we can engage in to build upon the "shared understandings that pull us together as Americans."

While Senator Obama discusses a "new kind of politics," the most interesting part of his book discusses politics, as it exists today, from his perch in the Senate, specifically the pervasive roles of money and the media. As a candidate for Senator, one of Obama’s major tasks was fund-raising, making cold-calls to the few Americans who can afford to write a $2,000 check to a politician. As a result, his primary interactions were limited to the top one percent of Americans, placing him "outside the world of immediate hunger, disappointment, fear, irrationality, and frequent hardship of the other 99 percent of the population," or the people he actually entered public life to serve. In addition, Senator Obama laments his inability to directly reach his constituents. If he were to hold 39 town hall meetings a year (as he did his first year in the Senate), Senator Obama would be able to reach maybe 100,000 constituents in a six-year Senate term, whereas a three-minute story on the lowest rated news program in Chicago would reach 200,000 people, making him "entirely dependent on the media" to reach his constituents. Yet, as Senator Obama explains, instead of using its power to present politicians to the people they are supposed to serve, the media instead seems to use its power to disengage Americans from politics altogether. He presents the example of a story with the White House making debt projections. Because the media doesn’t have the time or interest to do its own research, it will typically present the opinion of a Republican analyst that the Republican projections are accurate, the countering opinion of a Democratic analyst that the projections are inaccurate, and no independent analyst to tell the true story or provide a conclusion. Instead of being about the debt projections, the story becomes about the same old tired plot of Republicans and Democrats fighting again, boring readers and prompting them to "turn to the sports page, where the story line is less predictable and the box score tells you who won."

As Senator Obama presents it, the idea of a "new kind of politics" discourages this story line, instead focusing on narrowing differences and engaging in true dialogue and conversation with one another in order to find common ground. In an example of what is wrong with politics now, Senator Obama provides an interesting story of a breakfast meeting with President Bush, where he had noted Bush’s easy manner – that is, until Bush began his political speech, when "it felt as if somebody in a back room had flipped a speech," and Bush’s "easy affability was replaced by an almost messianic certainty," as he spelled out his political agenda in an agitated, rapid tone discouraging any interruption or opposing viewpoint. In demonstrating his contrast to President Bush, Senator Obama structures his political discussions as conversations, where he always presents both sides of each issue – whether the topic be energy, race, or welfare – and inevitably concludes that each side has relevant points. In fact, Senator Obama seems to take pains to present a "Republican" point of view, virtually ignoring issues Democrats may consider important, such as education and health care, which get a total of seven pages between them, and focusing on traditionally Republican areas, such as family, values, and faith. This, Senator Obama states, is the "guidepost for his politics": his mother’s simple principle, "How would that make you feel?" While he believes this guidepost serves him well, allowing him to gain insight into the other side’s perspective, it is a philosophy he says everyone would benefit from, to note the suffering of others and put ourselves in their position.

Ultimately, this is the core behind Senator Obama’s philosophy – that, if we fail to help others, we diminish ourselves. In meeting with his constituents, Obama has found power in the American spirit, of people who have suffered and yet continue to work hard to fulfill their dreams. In his experiences growing up in Indonesia and traveling to his father’s native land of Kenya, Senator Obama has seen first-hand the effect of countries where individuals do not control their own fate, but must instead rely on the self-restraint of the military or on corrupt bureaucrats. As a result, he has developed a deep appreciation for the freedom we are afforded as Americans and the hope that, through hard work, we can accomplish our dreams. It is this audacity to hope, he says, that binds us together as one people, as Americans. This shared sense of community is what drives his idea of a "new kind of politics," based on the premise that we have more similarities than differences, and that we can build on "those shared understandings that pull us together as Americans."

However, Obama concedes that, just because he believes there can be a new kind of politics, doesn’t mean he knows how to do accomplish it, because he admits, he doesn’t. He acknowledges that his book is more of a discussion than a manifesto and that his treatment of the issues is "often partial and incomplete." In fact, his discussion of the actual issues often seems simplistic, contradictory, and sometimes uninformed. Admittedly, I had more hope for Senator Obama as a political candidate before I read this book than I do now, just because he didn’t focus on the issues I would have liked to hear about, didn't provide substantive arguments, or didn’t present ideas I totally agreed with. Even more than his ideas on specific issues, though, I would have liked to hear how he plans to re-engage the American people: for example, does he have ideas about how to rid government of special interests and get more Americans involved in the process through a public funding system or a national holiday on Election Day? If politics is meant to be a discussion between two empathetic parties, how does he plan to engage ordinary Americans in that discussion? In the end, though, while Obama doesn’t go as far as he could in spelling out how he will re-engage Americans in our democracy, he lays the foundation for readers to make some of these conclusions for themselves, particularly in his narrative on race. In describing the problem of poverty among African-Americans, which has become a "permanent fixture in American popular culture," one which we as Americans take for granted, and "not for which we are culpable," Senator Obama inadvertently points to the impact a minority president could have. If the audacity of hope means that we are all bound together as Americans, then the implication of electing a minority President is clear: we are finally allowing new voices into the political discussion. If, in fact, we as a country do elect Senator Obama as president, then maybe, just maybe, I will join him and have the audacity to hope for the future of this country again.

Often, I like to read books outloud. It helps me to stay attentive and be an active reader. Rarely is a book so pleasing to hear in my own voice as The Audacity of Hope was. Most political or historical writing can be cumbersome and difficult to explore in this manner. Barack Obama's writing, instead, is strong, clear, and easy to read, with a cadence and strong diction that many writers do not succeed to develop.

Part memoir, part declaration and history of liberal wisdom, this book was a true pleasure to experience. Research and anecdotes constitute the foundation of this work. The justification of liberal thought and politics, made to seem indubitable in this text, is enveloped here in themes of hope, optimism, and virtuous American strength.

In the chapter titled Opportunity, Obama tells us about speaking with Warren Buffett, the world's second richest man. Buffett had wanted to discuss taxes with Senator Obama, to express his dissatisfaction with Bush's tax benefits for the rich. Buffett, whose income comes from dividends and capital gains, is taxed at an effective rate of only half that of his own receptionist, an American who makes her living from working wages, not investment income. Buffett's success comes from a talent for acquiring money - he is a good business man. But, Buffett points out, this talent would be useless if he had been born into a different type of society, such that of hunter-gatherers for instance. In that case, being a man of neither extraordinary strength or speed, he would struggle to survive. He benefits from the developed free market organization of our society more than most other people, just as a big, strong man benefits in the hunter-gatherer society, where that man probably does more than his share of the hunting and gathering. "'It just makes sense that those of us who've benefited most from the market should pay a bigger share'" to maintain that society which favors them, says Buffett.

Continuing in that vein, in his chapter titled The World Beyond Our Borders, Obama turns to the words of President John F. Kennedy, saying that America would pledge itself to helping the poor and suffering people around the world "'not because the Communists may be doing it, not because we seek their votes, but because it is right. If a free society cannot help those who are poor, it cannot save the few who are rich.'"

In his justification of government-run Social Security, Obama shows an adroit understanding of the rationale behind FDR's plan to keep America safe from totalitarian government. He dismisses the conservative myth that the purpose of the "welfare state" is to transform government into a gigantic wet blanket weighing down the American people. Instead, Obama reminds us that in the years of The Great Depression, developed countries around the world were falling prey to Communism, to Fascism, to Socialism. FDR saved the American people and government from these dangers by "giving workers a larger share of the economic pie," thereby cutting the legs out from the fear and oppression of the people, that open doors for those freedom-stealing isms.

And, to understand how to avoid actually becoming the overbearing "welfare state" that conservatives fear so fervently, Obama turns to paraphrasing Abraham Lincoln: "that we will do collectively, through our government, only those things that we cannot do as well or at all individually and privately." Just as FDR insured the freedom and prosperity of America by investing in capitalism and democracy, Obama delineates how that wisdom will serve us still today.

Whether he is giving us political history or writing about how he fell in love with his wife and cherishes his daughters, Barack Obama employs skill as a wordsmith to exhibit a solid grasp of important family and public values. The Audacity of Hope, then, proves to be as instructive and wise as it is interesting and good.

I finally got around to reading this and he is clearly a moderate in his political and policy views stated in the book. He never espoused any truly leftist values that some progressives were hoping for. He narrates the book in that folksy, intellectual style that he uses in his speeches, which kept my attention.

But he overuses semi-colons. As a journalism school graduate we were taught to scorn the semi-colon but he incorporates one in every paragraph, which grated on my nerves.

My two favorite chapters were the ones about Race and about Family. Good insights. His Family chapter is a microcosm of Michelle’s book, Becoming.

It is a good thing that these days, if a Democratic candidate wants to continue war and occupation in Iraq, he has to call it "phased redeployment" a la Obama, rather than "20,000 more troops," a la Kerry. People are fed up with the old policies, and they're looking towards candidates who talk left. I think that's a sign of a real shift among regular people, and we shouldn't dismiss anyone who wants to see real change but still has hopes in the Democratic Party. This is true even if we already know through bitter experience that a goal of the Democrats is to lower hopes and expectations as much as possible--all the easier to dash those hopes in the end. (Thus, Harry Reid's telling reply to the millions of anti-war voters who sent his party to Congress only to watch the Democrats write Bush a blank check for war, "maybe we set the bar too high.")

That said, there is something of a personality cult growing up around Obama, in particular. I read The Audacity of Hope to better understand the appeal, and what I found was a work of autohagiography to beat the band. As for political content, his true stripes are shown off proudly, as when he dismisses his days as a lefty as something gone up like marijuana smoke in a college dorm room, while bending over backwards to praise the policies of Ronald Reagan. It is quite a feat to watch him present himself to regular people as the face of "a new kind of politics," while assuring those in the halls of power that his are still the politics of Reagan and Clinton.

The book is, all in all, a painful read, owing to its sheer flabbiness. There are plenty of words, but precious little substance, and turning the page quickly becomes a chore. That said, I'd recommend reading it simply because Obama's campaign is a huge force on the left. It's worth reading, but we shouldn't get too hung up on the idea that the legions of people who will vote for Obama are actually for what Obama is for, because they're not (and Obama knows this, which is why he is so tight-lipped on the matter of concrete policy proposals). What people know is that they want an alternative to what they've got, and that's good news for anyone who wants to change the world and is looking for allies.

buddy read this with my dad over christmas after he gave me a copy as a gift. had really great conversations with him while reading it that are cherished memories. really appreciate how much my dad wanted to bond over communal activities we both enjoyed even if our tastes were different, he would read the occasional book out of his genre comfort zone to have something common to talk about with me and i would read political and legal nonfiction and current events since those were more his special interests. maybe it’s holiday nostalgia but i really miss how he pushed me to read outside my comfort zone, broadly and voraciously since childhood and i really owe my love of reading and stories to him. i am so grateful to have tried so many stories, like this one, outside of my comfort zone in my youth because it was very impactful to me to read this as a college student in 2006.