Talk:The Audacity of Hope

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the The Audacity of Hope article.
Article policies
Books Portal
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Books. To participate, you can edit the article. You can discuss the Project at its talk page.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the Project's quality scale. Please rate the article and then leave a short summary at in the comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article.

Contents

[edit] Re: Summary

Is this description for real? It reads like a breathless fan wrote it. What student of American history would take seriously any claim of some halcyon era "when Congress was characterized by collegiality and mutual respect"? I haven't read the book, so I don't feel like I am the person to rewrite it, but it definitely needs a description that doesn't read like a publisher's promo. In fact, I'd love to read a serious summary of it--what are these brilliant insights Obama has to share? ralian 19:26, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

It was copied from Wikisummaries. Bearly541 04:36, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
I think a better summary is definately needed. Joey Roe 13:49, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

I've read the book, and Obama doesn't necessarily lay out his stance on issues as much as he imparts his belief that Democrats and Republicans should work together to bring about real change for the country. He believes that disagreements between the two parties are too often characterized by both sides attempting to denigrate the other in order to further there own agenda. Obama believes that the parties should come together and through compromises and mutual respect develop policies that will best represent what the American people want. Shaun004 04:04, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Obama's actual positions on issues, from Iraq to the interpretation of the Constitution, do not leave much room for bipartisanship or compromise. I read "The Audacity of Hope" and I find it mostly uninspiring and polarizing. 161.24.19.82 (talk) 15:04, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
Not surprising that he has his interpretation of the Constitution, he was a professor of Constitutional law after all. Though, if you could set aside your personal view about his book and write from a generally NPOV, I think your contribution to this article could be helpful. The original author of much of the material didn't seem capable of that, perhaps someone who isn't star struck could bring some perspective to the issues he discusses. FantajiFan (talk) 16:03, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] For Kyle

That poem is for me.

Kyle, 2/18/08 129.93.145.164 (talk) 22:49, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

And not relevant, out it goes. Kellwie (talk) 23:14, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Allegations of racism

There is a user who is consistently editing the page, appending the term "racist" in front of the reference to Wright. As this appears out of context, I have removed this term and replaced it with a reference to the fact that Wright is "now controversial". Readers can follow the link to Wright, which contains a section dealing with the controversy. I consider this equates to a NPOV treatment of the matter, which is only of peripheral importance to the subject matter. KiwiMal (talk) 16:59, 19 March 2008 (UTC)KiwiMal

[edit] Where are the negative reviews?

The reception section has only positive reviews of the book.. Surely there was some reviewers out there that had negative opinions of the book? --Bobblehead (rants) 16:09, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

  • No, because obama is 100% pure awesome.--98.213.12.169 (talk) 18:44, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
Relatively new authors often don't get negative reviews because the publications figure there's no reason to review a book at all if they don't like if it's not by someone well-known - if they like it they may review it, but if they would only do a negative review by a more-or-less unknown author, they figure their readers will not be interested in finding out that someone they aren't familiar with wrote a bad book. But when a well known person writes a book , they are more than happy to publish either good or bad reviews. So it's not uncommon to not find negative reviews of less well-known authors. I don't know what the situation is with Obama's books specifically, but that is a generally true principle. Tvoz |talk 19:43, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
I was thinking more of Dreams in terms of timing, but the point may still be valid for Audacity. Tvoz |talk 19:47, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

I added in a negative review by Ann Coulter, to balance it out. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.38.204.159 (talk) 15:09, 13 May 2008 (UTC)