wnyc.org / 93.9fm / am 820

One of the best instances of the power of words was JFK's speech about going to the moon. Before this speech the technical obstacles were considered intractable, whereas after, they became the focus of possible solutions, which obviously led to success.

Kerry comes across to me as an effete windbag - and now I sense he's visciously paying someone back for who knows what.

Obama - well that soundbite you (WNYC? NPR?) keep running of Obama's reminds me of teh folksingers in "A Mighty Wind" talking aobut how they love "singin" and whatever else tehy love doin without teh g - to me this sounds so totally affected and false, I decided no Obama for me. I usually Vote Democaratic but now I love Ron Paul, esp. for telling the truth - just this AM about the 5 speedboats vs the US Navy!

I believe, at the end of the day what they both offer are just words, nothing more than that. What we know about all of them are promises, their past experiences are not more then tiny indicators of what they can do. I think records are not more than fetishizing ages and time spent in DC.

I think we may be missing Obama's pont. It's not just "Yes we can". His idea is that nothing will be accomplished unless the American people are behind it. This may be his community organizer background but it doesn't make it invalid.

I don't find Obama inspiring and I am an highly educated person. I find it annoying how much the media (including this show) seem to assume that everyone loves Obama. I find him highly suspect and a phony.

can any serious discussion of the political power of words of hope ignore Hitler's success in rousing Germany from paralyzed despondency to exuberant action?

How much is Brian getting to push so hard for Obama? This election coverage is a joke.

Kerry not endorsing his former running mate? Still hoping that we have Edwards Sworn in in a year, but I wouldn't be sorry if Obama is second in line. (Or if Obama is the candidate, maybe he can take Edwards with him. They are a good pair.)

There is a reason that Freedom of speech is the first amendment. Actions speak louder than words, but words inspire those actions.

I support latte drinking, sushi eating, volvo driving, new york times reading, body piercing, and hollywood loving. And I even love a good freak show every now and again. Taxes? Not so much.

Ultimately, you can get the people on your side today with words of fear... but words of hope will get them on your side tomorrow and every day after that. Scaring people provides a short-term visceral reaction that will get them behind you, but if you promote optimism and hope, you'll gradually bring people to your side and they'll stay there.

Re: Andrew Cuomo's "Shuck & Jive" comment reported in Today's Times and all over the Blogs yesterday regarding campaigning.

What does this say about the real people behind their political facades? If you use it, does that mean it's part of your normal everday lexicon, a sign of how you view people and the world?

For example: Who ever even knew the term "macaca" before George Allen showed his true colors? Or were those really his true colors?

Apologies for the long comment, but this is not as simple a question as it seems. It can ONLY be an "either / or" proposition IF there is NO intended link between words spoken AND deeds done. If there IS an intended link, then words and deeds are rendered into a single unit which must be judged as either in or out of balance.

The unacceptable, or undesirable, connection between words and deeds comes when the two do NOT clearly agree. WORDS which indicate a clear and defined intention but are not supported by the resulting deeds amounts to a promise broken. DEEDS with clear and defined outcomes but are AFTERWARD explained in a manner which reinterprets, rearranges or ignores any relevant fact in an attempt to FORCE word/deed agreement is at best revisionism.

The "words vs. deeds" conundrum is best judged with historical perspective after the person(s) is no longer in a position to affect the outcome.