Close
Live from Copenhagen: Kofi Annan, Thomas Friedman at the CNN/YouTube Climate Debate(Watch Now)
Change Player Size
Watch this video in a new window

Barack Obama - Hope Is Never False - YES WE CAN Music Video

The Audacity of Hope Yes We Can! Meet Barack Early Years Barack Obama was born in Hawaii on August 4th, 1961. His father, Barack Obama Sr., was born and raised in a small village in Kenya, where h...  
 
Customize

More From: rorytrevelyan

Loading...

QuickList(0)

Upgrade to Flash Player 10 for improved playback performance. Upgrade Now or get more info.
NOTICE
This video contains an audio track that has not been authorized by WMG. The audio has been disabled. More about copyright
153 ratings
Sign in to rate
36,190 views
Want to add to Favorites? Sign In or Sign Up now!
Want to add to Playlists? Sign In or Sign Up now!
Want to flag a video? Sign In or Sign Up now!

Statistics & Data

Loading...

Video Responses (2)

Sign in to post a Comment

Text Comments (170)   Options

Loading...
meforgodforall (3 weeks ago) Show Hide
 0
Marked as spam
absolute shit. you people need to stand up and be the change you want...
cptcolo (1 month ago) Show Hide
 0
Marked as spam
reading these comments I can tell the tone of the country has changed. idealized hopeful views of Obama are gone but what are they replaced with? For all his bluster, it is the sad province of this man that he cannot choose his triumph. He can only choose how he will stand when the call of destiny comes. Hoping that he'll have the courage to answer.
Comment(s) marked as spam Show
truefaith00 (3 months ago) Show Hide
+1
Marked as spam
He (and his supporters) will blame the Bush administration for creating a huge mess that Obama 'walked in to' but then continue the same assinine programs and wars that Bush did, and all the presidents before him did.

When you continue the torture, drone strikes, troop commitments and reckless fiscal policy that Bush apparently began, how are you any different? Where is the change? A change in appearance?

No thanks. Short on substance, long on blame and rhetoric.
wavernr (4 months ago) Show Hide
 0
Marked as spam
That's the problem with you young voters. Youi've never experienced the real world and were educated by left wing idealists with no common sense. Everybody can agree that pollution is a problem. The idealists decide it's a good idea to go with the cash for clunkers deal, putting hundreds of thousands of mechanics with families out of work, and destroying perfectly good cars that could've been sent to impoverished nations. Not real smart. Remember: Vote Democrat (if you can't think).
fatkenstein (3 months ago) Show Hide
 -1
Marked as spam
Wavenr leave my age out of it. I am sick and tired of people stereotyping young people. I f you want to engage in a serious conversation then i am more than willing but get to the point. Now on to the issue at hand. The question of whether CforC could be better is besides the point. The program should be evaluated on A) Whether it achieved it's goal of getting clunkers off the road. and B) Whether it stimulated the economy. On both counts it was a success
Hundreds of thousands? cite please
wavernr (3 months ago) Show Hide
 0
Marked as spam
I really don't give a shit if you're sick and tired of being stereotyped. If the shoe fits, wear it. All of those cars could've been given to third world countries, to people that could put them to good use. Success? So what about next year's clunkers? And the next year's? Are we now not only paying for the subsistance of useless people, but now we're buying them cars too? I haven't seen anything stimulated from this yet. Niether did Pelosi's prophylactics boost the economy.
fatkenstein (3 months ago) Show Hide
 -1
Marked as spam
Ah yes but as with most stereotypes the shoe does not fit so you can drop that now. Moving on. Once again you are missing the point, certainly those cars could have been sent to other countries but that does not indicate ineffectiveness on the programs part. The program set out to accomplish 2 goals 1)Reduce pollution 2)Stimulate economy. On both counts it was succesful. On an off note your suggestion of sending the cars overseas would not have reduced pollution, rather it would have shifted it.
fatkenstein (3 months ago) Show Hide
 0
Marked as spam
Your argument is analogous to this. Two men are at an aircraft carrier to judge it's effectiveness. Man A points out the sterling battle record, and low loss of life. Man B points out that the materials used to build the arircraft carrier could have been used to build low cost cars for the poor here. Does Man B's argument mean the aircraft carrier is ineffective. NO, Man B's argument(much like yours) is besides the point!
fatkenstein (3 months ago) Show Hide
 -1
Marked as spam
Finally, one of the secondary goals was to remove clunkers from the streets meaning less clunkers next year. This is especially true because most cars being produced now are not clunkers but relatively efficient. When did only useless people own clunkers? That statement is completely off base. Finally I will show you evidence of the stimulating effects of cash for clunkers. I would still appreciate the source of your mechanics losing jobs statement.

Would you like to comment?

Join YouTube for a free account, or sign in if you are already a member.