I think I started trying to read this book in... late August? early September?

and I promptly fell into a months-long reading slump and haven't finished a damn book since.

I'm not saying it's entirely this book's fault, but I am saying that at this point cutting my losses is probably for the best. Maybe I'll come back to it someday (I doubt it) but for now, the stars are not in position. Which is frustrating, because as I pick it up to jot down some thoughts on the bits I did get through, I can see from my bookmark that I was over halfway through.

Credit where credit is due, when I had the time to actually sit down and focus on this book, I found the writing to be largely clear and coherent. The only bits I struggled with were specific references to some late 90s and early 2000s political events, when I was a preteen and, despite the prevalence of NPR in my household, not paying a whole lot of attention to the goings-on in DC. It also doesn't hurt that, after eight years of Barack Obama's presidency, his ideas and the way he articulates them are fairly familiar.

Reading this book in 2022 is kind of a trip, though, because both American politics and my own political views have shifted dramatically. I still like Obama for the most part, and I'm proud that he was the first president I got to cast a vote for, but the stances he takes here feel... centrist and even a little bit milquetoast now. It's not that "we should be nice to each other and behave with common decency" isn't a valuable belief, or even that it wouldn't be revolutionary if that were to become the priority in American politics - it's that it is idealistic, not pragmatic. This is a critique I've seen leveled at The West Wing a lot (a show I love, but acknowledge has flaws): that the idea that all problems can be solved by rational debate ignores the deliberate, strategic irrationality with which some people in power behave, and doesn't actually model or inspire actionable solutions.

It's hard to believe that the solution is civil debate after Mitch McConnell held a Supreme Court nomination hostage for nearly a full year, you know?

I am sure that this book would have been interesting and valuable to read when it came out, or (as other reviews note) before Obama's first inauguration, but in a post-Trump-presidency world, it just doesn't feel very relevant anymore.

Very boring book I tried reading the most I could but got very bored.

This book is heavy on policy proposals with a liberal dose of personal anecdotes and stories to move the narrative along. Obama divides the chapters up into specific categories, such as Race and Family. This helps him, and the reader, to keep his various ideas and suggestions from overlapping each other. In between his provides tidbits of his first few years as a Senator from Illinois (this was written in late 2006).

Occasionally the rhetoric seems a little too lyrical, such as when he writes on page 226: "I know that tucking in my daughters that night, I grasped a little bit of heaven." But overall he manages to stick to the topic of the chapter at hand, and more often that not provides sensible and compelling reasons for doing what he suggests. Already he was thinking about universal health care, as he writes at length about the urgent necessity of providing it to everyone, and how the U.S. being such a wealthy nation can surely afford to do so. Ironically, he notes that there is not a perfect system and it will be just about impossible to create one, but that we have to do something. This is definitely how Obama care has turned out: many bugs that have needed to be, and still are being, worked out; yet millions more now have healthy insurance than they did before.

While being consistent on the topic of health care, while writing this book he had not yet moved into supporting gay marriage. He writes of supporting same sex unions, but being opposed to gay marriage. He does not provide a reason for being opposed, which is interesting in light of him coming out and supporting it several years later once he was President. But this is also a microcosm of how quickly societal attitudes have largely changed in the last decade concerning equality for gays and lesbians. Obama seems to be part of this evolution: supporting same sex unions but going no further, then slowly expanding his support until he finally (with a push from Vice President Joe Biden) pushes for marriage equality.

Obama is at his best and most poignant when speaking about his family life: the struggle to be home for his two daughters and his wife when he is constantly pulled away by politics, first in Springfield and then in Washington. His tempers this with stories concerning everyday people that he has encountered across Illinois who are dealing with some real problems. He chronicles one man who doesn't have health insurance and doesn't have enough money to pay for a liver transplant that his son badly needs. People with stories similar to that is why Obama got into politics - because he thought that he could make a difference. He does not shy away from describing the difficulties, both financially and morally, that he has with trying not to be beholden to interest groups. Basically, unless one is independently wealthy, it will be impossible to successfully run for any statewide office without racking up some major debts and favors owed to someone somewhere.

One thing that sticks out when he is describing his life in Washington is that he would only be there for three days each week, flying in late on Monday or early on Tuesday morning, and then leaving Friday morning to return to Chicago. This part-time residency in Washington, coupled with a hectic schedule while he is there, reminds me of something that I have seen alluded to many times over the last several years: that Congressmen do not take the time to actually get to know one another on a personal level, to learn what is and is not important to their colleagues, and to forge deep relationships built on personal goodwill. This contrasts sharply with stories about how Congressmen used to socialize with each other while Congress was in session, and because of travel difficulties in the pre-jet travel age, only returned home if there was some type of personal emergency. I am not blaming Obama for this; instead it just makes me wonder if this constant flying back home each weekend really helps a Congressman or woman better serve their constituency in the long run.

Grade: B

«انچه را من در این کتاب عرضه میکنم بسیار فروتنانه است ... واکنشهای شخصی من نسبت به ارزشها و آرمانهایی که مرا به زندگی سیاسی کشاند . بررسی اجمالی گفتمان سیاسی جاری است که بین ما تفرقه می اندازد و بهترین ارزیابی شخصی من در مورد تخریب روش سیاسی کنونی با انگیزه خیرخواهی عموم ...! این بررسی برپایه تجربه های شخصی من است . در جایگاه سناتور ،حقوق دان ،همسر ، پدر و شخصی مسیحی و‌شکاک »
کتاب در سال ۲۰۰۶ نوشته شده یعنی در دوران رییس جمهوری بوش و زمانی که اوباما تک‌سناتورِ سیاه‌پوست ایالات متحده بود (از سال ۲۰۰۵) بعد چاپ این کتاب شهرتش چندبرابر شد و سه سال بعد خودش بود که برای ریاست جمهوری اعلام کاندیداتوری کرد ...
درباره اینکه کتاب درباره چیه باید گفت بر خلاف کتاب «شدن» که زندگی میشل اوباما از کودکی تا الان از زبان خودش بود این کتاب بیشتر شرح ارا و عقاید اوباما درباره مهمترین چیزهاست . عناوین هر فصل هم موضوعیه که راجع بهش صحبت میکنه : جمهوری خواه ها و دموکراتها،ارزشها،قانون اساسی ما،سیاست،فرصت،ایمان،نژاد،دنیای بیرون از مرزهای ما و در اخر خانوداه
همانطور که خودش میگه: «گرچه در هر فصل به تعدادی از فوری‌ترین چالش‌های سیاسی اشاره می‌کنم و در چارچوبی کلی مسیری را که به‌نظرم باید به آن گام بگذاریم پیشنهاد می‌دهم، اما برخورد من به این مسائل اغلب نصفه‌نیمه و ناقص است. من تئوری اتحاد دولت امریکا را ارائه نداده‌ام و این صفحات بیانیه‌ای برای عمل نیستند که جدول‌ها و نمودارها و جداول زمانی و برنامه‌های ده‌نکته‌یی مخصوص خود را هم داشته باشند.»
همانطور که انتظار داشتم زبان کتاب مثل نوع زبان خود اوباما که در سخنرانیهاش میبینیم صمیمی و دلنشینه و کاملا باورپذیره که برخلاف خیلی دیگه از سیاستمدارها اوباما دغدغه ای داره و اون بازگرداندن شرافت در سیاست ورزی و دعوت به گونه ای جدید از سیاست ورزیه و همینه رمز موفقیتش!
نمیشه کتاب رو خلاصه کرد و کتاب پر از خاطره های اوباما و گفتگوهاش با اشخاص مختلفه اما نقل قولهایی از کتاب رو اینجا میارم :
«البته هیچ پنهان نمیکنم که من داستان دموکراتها را بیشتر میپسندم زیرا که استدلالهای انها بیشتر بر پایه مدرک و منطق است . اما به بیانی ساده تر توجیهات چپی ها و راستیها بسیار شبیه و مانند تصویر یکدیکر در اینه اند.در داستانهای هر دوطرف مثل همه داستانهایی که بر مبنای توطئه قرار دارند به اندازه کافی حقیقت موجود است که هواداران مشتاق دو حزب انها را بپذیرند .بی انکه تناقضی در انها یافت شود و اشتیاق انها را زایل کند هدف انها متقاعدکردن طرف مقابل نیست بل گرم نگه داشتن بازار خود و درست جلوه دادن دیدگاهشان است تا هرچه بیشتر اعضای جدید بسیج کنند و به کمک انها حزب مخالف را به تسلیم وادارند »(فصل اول جمهوری خواهها و دموکراتها)
«به تصور من گریز دموکراتها از بحث ارزش ها همانقدر اشتباه است که نگرش جمهوریخواهان به موضوع ارزش ها و استفاده ابزاری از آن
... یا غلو میکنیم و میکوییم سیاستهایی که دوست نمیداریم بر ارزشهای ما تاثیر منفی گذاشته اند یا هنگامی که سیاستهای مورد علاقه مان با ارزشهای متعادل کننده درگیر میشوند خود را به نفهمی میزنیم .برای نمونه وقتی که صحبت از دخالت دولت در بازار یا حق شهروندان برای حمل اسلحه به میان می اید محافظه کاران براق میشوند اما بسیاری از این محافظه کاران هنگامی که دولت تلفنها را کنترل میکند صدایشان در نمی اید . در مورد دموکراتها نیز این دوگانگی معیار صدق میکند»(فصل دوم ارزشها)

«اگر از دختر ۸ ساله من بپرسید که پدرت چه کاره است در جوابتان میگوید که قانون درست میکند! با این حال شگفت انگیز ترین چیز درباره واشینگتن انست که در این شهر بیشتر وقت مباحثه بر سر این نیست که قانون ها چگونه باید باشند بلکه بر سر اینست که قانون چیست و چه معنایی دارد...
پس قانون اساسی مان را چگونه درک کنیم و بدانیم که در مورد جنجال مربوط به دادگاه ها چه میگوید؟ اول باید بگویم خوانش دقیق اسناد بنیانگذاری کشور به ما میفهماند که بسیاری رفتار های ما بر پایه انها شکل گرفته است . مثلا حقوق انکار ناپذیر را در نظر بگیرید ۲۰۰ سال از اعلامیه استقلال و لایحه حقوق مدنی گذشته و ما هنوز در مورد معنای «جستجوی معقول »جر و بحث داریم و میپرسیم که ایا متمم دوم هر نوع مقررات اسلحه را ممنوع میکند و ایا قانون اساسی بعضی حقوق بنیادین مانند حق ازدواج یا حق سالم نکه داشتن بدن را به صورت تلویحی پذیرفته است یا به صورتی روشن؟ و ایا این حقوق شامل تصمیم های شخصی مثل سقط جنین یا پایان دادن به زندگی مصنوعی و یا امیزش هم جنسان میشود یا نه؟
انچه از چهارچوب قانون اساسی ما بر می اید اینست که راهی پیش پای ما بگذارد که بتوانیم در مورد اینده مان بحث کنیم ماشین هزار توی ان _یعنی جدایی قدرتها مهارها و تعادل ها اصول فدرالیستی و منشور حقوق _همه برای ان طرح شدند که مارا به گفتگو بنشانند »(قانون اساسی ما )

«از لحاظی میتوان کفت هرچه انسان در کار سیاست بیشتر بماند بهتر میتواند به چنان شجاعتی اراسته شود زیرا وقتی واقعیتها را دریافتی از بسیاری قیدها و رنج ها ازاد میشوی و میفهمی هر اندازه در رای دادن محتاط باشی کسی سرانجام از تو خشمگین خواهد شد و نفس شجاعت را به حسابگری تعبیر خواهد کرد!در حوزه انتخابی ام بعد از همایشی که داشتم پیرمردی محترم به من نزدیک شد و با خشم از من انتقاد کرد که چرا با وجود مخالفت با جنگ عراق خواستار بازگشت نیروهامان از ان کشور نشدم بحث کوتاه و شیرینی داشتم و برای ان مرد توضیح دادم که فراخوانی عجولانه نیروها ان کشور را به گرداب جنگ داخلی می اندازد که خطر گسترده شدن جنگ برای تمامی خاورمیانه را به همراه دارد در پایان مرد مسن دست مرا فشرد و گفت هنوز فکر میکنم که دارین اشتباه میکنین اما به هر حال به نظر میرسه که راجع به این موضوع خیلی فکر کردین اما میدونین چیه اگه باهام موافقت میکردین خیلینا امید میشدم ...
-خیلی متشکرم -ان مرد به راه خود ادامه داد و رفت و من به اون نگاه میکردم و به یاد گفته ای از قاضی لوییس برندیس افتادم که گفته بود که در هر دموکراسی مهم ترین مقام مقام شهروند ساده است »(سیاست)
«درواقع من ناگزیرم که امریکا را اینکونه ببینم :خودم فرزند مردی سیاه پوست و مادری سفید پوستم که در کوره امیزش نژادها در هاوایی به دنیا امدم .خواهری دارم که نیمه اندونزیایی است ولی اغلب اورا با مکزیکی ها اشتباه میگیرند. شوهرخواهر و خواهرزاده ای دارم که از تبار چینی اند و بعضی خویشاوندان نسبی دارم که به مارکارت تاچر نخست وزیر سابق انگلستان می مانند و بعضی خویشاوندان نسبی دیگرم سیاه پوستاتی کامل و تمام عیارند.در نتیجه کردهمایی های خانوادگی مان در جشن زادروز مسیح بیشتر به نشست عمومی سازمان ملل شباهت دارد من هرگز این اختیار را نداشته ام که میهن دوستی خودم را بر پایه دلبستگی های نژادی بگذارم و یا ارزش های خود را با ترازوی قبیله اندازه بگیرم» (نژاد)
«جنگ سرد به گونه ای موفقیت امیز پایان گرفت: از وقوع فاجعه ای هسته ای جلوگیری به عمل امد مناقشات میان قدرتهای بررگ جهان به صورتی موثر پایان گرفت و دوره ای از رونق اقتصادی پیش امد که نظیرش در گذشته دیده نمیشد چه در دنیا چه در امریکا ...اما این نظام هم مانند همه نظام های ساخته بشر خطاها و تناقضات خود را دارد ..سیاستگزاران امریکا همه چیز را از دریچه جنگ سرد نگریستند . جنبش های ملی گرایی را مناقشات قومی را کوششهای اصلاح طلبانه را و تمایلات چپی را ...ده سال دزدانی مانند موبوتو و لاتها را تحمل و حتا یاری کردیم و دل خوش به این بودیم که مخالفان کمونیسم اند . گهگاه زیرزیرکی ، امریکا در براندازی حکومتهایی که منتخب مردم بودند کوشش میکرد. مثل براندازی حکومت مصدق در ایران که هنوز اثار زلزله وارش مارا در واشنگتن میلرزاند ..»
«من اطمینان دارم هجوم به عراق بی انکه منطقی روشن در پشت اش باشد فقط بر آتش کشمکش های خاورمیانه نفت خواهد ریخت و به جای انکه بهترین نتیجه را برایمان به ارمغان بیاورد بدترین نتیجه را خواهد داد . دنیای عرب را علیه ما تحریک میکند و باعث میشود داوطلبان بیشتری به القاعده بپیوندند »(دنیای بیرون از مرزهای ما)

Good man, disappointing book. Barack Obama is an emotionally attractive figure and I am sure that he will do great things. He looks good, he sounds good, he's smart, and he has high ideals. I can't help but like Barack Obama. That said, I'm old enough to be skeptical, and this book did not sell me on his candidacy.

A lot of people loved this book, which I think is an expression of the dissatisfaction people have felt about the politics of the last couple decades. (Depending on one's point of view, politics is where ideals go to die or, possibly, grow up and get real.) As with a lot of political figures, some people see in Obama what they want to see. For some, he's a liberal hero; for others, a hope for centrism. He bothers people on the right and disappoints people to his left. In this book, he presents himself as slightly left of center, while his legislative voting record (what there is of it) seems a little left of that.

This seems like a manifesto of a new politics and a testament of social renewal; however, it's a pretty standard political book. Like a lot of politicians, Obama tries very hard not to offend. It's easy to make impassioned pleas for things that people already like - puppies, rainbows, a more civil political discourse... My point is that it sounds so good because there is so little in this book that is daring or controversial.

A friend of mine said that this book was "a lot of frosting on a very thin cake." For my part, I was tired of soaring words and elegant turns of phrase, stacked one atop the other, by around page 50. His earlier book, Lessons From My Father is far more interesting.

So many things I could say but would rather just sum it up with: Amen!

I really enjoyed this book. Obama is clearly a brilliant mind but he’s an even better writer. The language was masterful. To be fair, Obama and I see eye to eye on a lot of issues so there may have been some confirmation bias afoot, that being said, I found this to be informative and inspiring. He synthesized some major world events that went on during my youth into his experiences as a politician, providing a clear view into the barriers and realities that face lawmakers today. It was fascinating. A little bit of a bummer that he became President and the world isn’t magically fixed, but I don’t think that detracts from the quality of the book.

What Obama has to say in both his novels isn’t necessarily revolutionary when you break it down but it covers the basic principles of humanity in a forgotten, unrecognisable new world. Like the title says, it brings hope of a better world. Hope seems audacious in this modern world because it is growing more self indulged, busy and forgetful of basic acts of humanity. Obama’s novels seem to create a self-reflexivity into myself and remind me of how important the little and big acts of kindness are. And also, that not all the worlds problems can be fixed in one day by one person but if we have a common sense of humane values and create universal rights for everyone we can begin a journey to a better world.

I loved Promised Land and this novel covers the same concepts.
I just seemed to zone out and leave days in between reading the novel. I was addicted to Promised Land and read it every day. So my rating is three stars due to the length and quality of the writing.

I became aware of this book during the 2008 election campaign and told myself I would read it - provided that Barack Obama was elected President of the United States. While I thought that he had, in general, conducted a remarkable campaign that year, I was dubious as to whether my country would elect him President because I knew he would have to win a significant amount of the white vote to be elected. I was doubtful of that because, let's face it, some white Americans have an aversion to an African American candidate seeking high political office because of the color of his/her skin. But, as I said, Barack Obama acquitted himself ably and I was impressed with that.

So, a few days after Obama's election to the Presidency in November 2008, I read "THE AUDACITY OF HOPE" and appreciated its clarity of thought as well as the writing style. Much of what he expressed about reclaiming the American Dream resonated with me. President Obama has the makings of a good writer. Like President Kennedy --- one of my heroes --- Obama is well-read, a deep thinker, self-effacing, charismatic, and eloquent. I think anyone who wants to be President of the United States should have those qualities, as well as a deep compassion for people.

I voted for Obama. That, however, did not play a part in picking up this book.

As a resident of Chicago for many years, I knew of him long before he hit the "big stage' and became a household name. If there's one thing I can say about Mr. Obama, it is that he is and has always been CONSISTENT. This book further solidifies that fact.

Although -as I mentioned in a previous update - I do wish this was a bit more relaxed read (I wanted more Barry and less Barack), I understand why this book often had a "60 minutes-ish" vibe - Barack can't just "let it all hang out".For a man like him, privacy and discretion is key.

Thankfully, that ill vibe comes and goes, leaving me with an overall pleasant feeling that this book is a golden nugget, and that I'd like to pick up another one from Mr. Obama. Truthfully, it left me feeling INTIMATELY connected with the guy- something I doubt would have happened had I not picked up the book.

In closing, whether you agree with how Obama operates or not, I suggest you give this a shot. Even if bio's aren't your cup of tea, this one is worth at least a sip!

I'm sure this book was a different reading experience when it first came out. However, in 2020 it doesn't hold up for me. I don't think it offers anything useful or particularly new. Eh.

I recommend reading as a bedtime story in 2020