Obamania
 

I just watched a Nightline special on the zeal of Obama's supporters. Whether it was the slant the reporter put on the crowds... I don't know. In any case, I was surprised and a little unsettled by the extreme emotive response he seems to trigger. Women fainting, men crying... clearly these people were moved on a deeply personal level by his speech.

What gives rise to this? What does it mean when people seem to consider politicians on such deeply personal terms? Do you think this is a new phenomenon, or has this long been the nation's mood?

For myself, the first reaction is a mixture of bafflement and disgust. I can't sympathize because I've never had a similar reaction to any politician. Perhaps these people feel very empty and purposeless in their daily lives. I believe the "change" rhetoric strikes a chord with people who are frustrated with life in one way or another and have developed the idea that the presidency holds sway over their daily happiness.

Nearly every Obama supporter I've spoken with repeats the "change" mantra. Thing is, I'm confident most of them don't have the slightest clue what changes he is proposing. Further, I'd bet 10 cases of beer that 90% of Obama supporters can't articulate the current policies that so need the changing.

I don't intend this to be an anti-Obama rant and I apologize for the foray into some very amateur pop-psychology. I don't plan to move to out of the country if he wins... I just can't shake the worry that many people view the federal government as a gateway to personal fulfillment.

Well, uhh... I think you're being rather harsh. People are wary of the war, corporate influence, our crappy foreign policy, the free-spending budget, and this eerie sense of impending doom that the Bush administration seems to be ushering in. If you're liberal, you're probably exhausted from the tension of what you believe to be the end of freedom. Obama, to them, represents a reprieve from all of that. I wouldn't assume these people don't know the issues because he's made it rather clear what his stances are on these things. Yeah, its a whole lot of change.

Yesterday it was the zeal of Ron Paul's supporters. Today it's Obama. The rise has to do with charisma more than anything else. Obama has more charisma in his left foot than Hillary and McCain have in their whole bodies.

I happen to agree with him more than Hillary or McCain, so I'll probably vote for him (unless someone else jumps in the race late).

The "change" thing? I could give a shit. It's meaningless rhetoric. What matters to me is Obama's voting record, which is similar to the way my voting record would look had I been serving in the Senate. I'm not sure why one would be disgusted by the "change" rhetoric, but to each their own.

i think you're right halx, but then i don't think we totally disagree... why would people have a sense of doom? i hear rhetoric about the "politics of fear", but it seems if people feel doomed as you say... Obama seems to be the beneficiary.

if we made it through the carter administration, i think we can weather any storm. :) my point is that there is nothing the president alone can do to make me feel my doom. i'm concerned that so many people are personally invested enough to feel doomed. as to freedom, there's nothing Bush has done that is without the approval (tacit or expressed) of the democratic congress. if that's the issue, i don't think they should expect change.

will, it's plain from my OP that the disgust is rooted in the emotional response to the rhetoric, not that i'm disgusted by "change".

honestly, i'm scared for Obama. If he wins, there are enough nutty white supremacist types to be in absolute revolt and would probably denounce america right then and there to the point of doing something very stupid (even more stupid than being a racist!?!) YEAH!

I dunno, I know it's not related but I just wanted to go on record and say, I wouldn't be surprised at all if someone tries to assassinate him out of racial motivation. People can be fanatics FOR Obama, or against Obama.

Extremism isn't good in either scenario really.

I am disheartened by emotional responses to any political campaign. When people make decisions based on their heart rather than their head there is rarely a good result.

I am not sure how much weight you should give to these sort of reports though. While I am sure there are quite a few that are quite excited by Obama I don't feel that the majority of Obama supporters are like this.

People are excited at the prospect of change, but what change means is very likely different from person to person. The biggest change many of these people want is a change from Bush. It doesn't matter if congress supports him or not. It doesn't matter if he actually did even half of what he's been accused of doing. The fact is, he is not liked. He has used fear to build his mandate (from 9/11 and the axis of evil to the war on terror). Add to this, the economic uncertainly that many are experiencing.

It doesn't matter who is responsible (if any one person can be held responsible). What matters is that the leader is the person people look to for solutions. Bush isn't giving them what they want and Obama seems to be saying the right things.

For some people this is enough.

For others, they've read his policy papers and scrutinized his voting records and listened to what he is saying... and that is enough.

The thing is, if the media has to choose between which type of Obama support they want to focus their story on they are going to choose the fanatic over the one that has done his or homework... every time.

I don't think media slant is the sum total in this case... but, as a general rule, i think that's a wise perspective.

<object width="425" height="355"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/_UOk5m8fS3E&rel=1"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/_UOk5m8fS3E&rel=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="355"></embed></object>

As a side note, I didn't know people post 100's of youtubes of themselves playing guitar hero. Took me a while to find a version of this that was not offical (aka can't embed) yet wasn't some idiot playing GH3.

Hehehe this is funny....

<object width="425" height="355"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/x3J4b-NWKYA&rel=1"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/x3J4b-NWKYA&rel=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="355"></embed></object>

Can you consider that the mindset you describe above is the opposite of the narrow participation of a privileged and connected few in an admiistration catering to "crony-capitalism", as in "kenny boy" Lay, Allbaugh/Brownie, the Califoria power crisis....etc...etc...

It seem to be about govenment "of the people, by the people, and for the people", instead of by an oligarchy, for an oligarchy. There is a hope that government can be driven by the will and concerns of the many, at the expense of the privileged few who can afford to lobby and contribute to campaign coffers to counter that will and those concerns.

I don't buy it because Obama commits to the opposite of reducing the money flow to the military industrial complex, but I think that many people ignore that shortcoming.

I also don't buy his "unity" message, as there will be no "unity" on any issues with Bush-Cheney supporters, and since there are only two major political parties, both skewed to the right, in varying degrees, there is Obama's "right lite" message, vs. "McCain-we'll-be-in Iraq-for-50-to-100-years", not much will change in an Obama presidency and with the current make up of the US senate.....45 republicans, and 29 'let's give the president retroactive immunity for domestic spying and unlimited future authority to continue to do so"....democrats....

So relax, irate.....Obama's supporters don't seem to know it yet, but same old, same old....count on it!

3 things scare me about Obama and this whole election process his year, but the last 2 lead to my biggest paranoidal, delusional, conspiratorial, fear.

#1 is how fast Obama has risen, it seems either he has extreme charisma and leadership capabilities or someone in the shadows is guiding him. I tend to believe it's the charisma and leadership abilities.... I just don't see them. But he is better than Hilary..... but he did turn his back on Fla. and Michigan voters because they chose to freely choose their election date and the DNC couldn't handle it. (PS.... this is NOT an inivtation to threadjack telling me about the hows and whys... do that in a different thread, please.) I truly do not know what to think of this man yet.... but something about him scares me.

So the rise in the primary could just be he was the anti-Clinton candidate... but that doesn't explain the youth's fascination with him so I have to say it's charisma.

#2 I echo the feelings from Shauk... someone will get to him and he'll be martyred. I am also scared of this whole superdelegate thing. If he wins the majority of regular but Hilary pulls the supers out and takes the nomination.... we could see riots. we could see riots from either of these situations and possibly a true race war.

#3 I have been around and watched many primary seasons, I remember as far back as 80 (not too far back I guess). I have never seen such hostility and revolt that is occurring in BOTH parties. I believe it is because Obama and McCain are seriously stirring up change, a change that will take us from hate politics to "Let's get things done, stop fucking around and let's work together to find answers." This change is what the leaders of the parties and corporate America fear because should either be elected and they won't let that happen. It could be an assassination for McCain, then who gets the nod for the GOP. Or McCain could just be a good old boy fooling everyone... and it'll be hate mongering, fear and business as usual while he divides the country further. I just don't think McCain is that good of an actor... I think he is sincere and means it when he says he will work with Dems to find solutions.


My biggest paranoidal, delusional, conspiratorial, fear: If we have riots because of the superdelegates or an assassination (even an attempted one) against Obama, we may see President Bush put into action Martial Law and suspend elections period. If Corporate America and the old leaders realize their days are numbered and change is coming... we could see multiple faux terrorist attacks which lead to Bush calling Martial Law and suspending the elections.

I will be very happy come Nov. 5th when we have the elections and all my fear and hopefully, gloom and doom in this area will cease the day the newly elected president (whomever he is... sorry Hillary fans I think she's done) stands up and swears the oath of office

We shall see, but one thing I do feel certain of, these are going to be seriously interesting times to live through. They could be great, re generative prosperity filled times or they could turn out to be the worst times this nation will have ever seen. I truly believe it'll be one or the other and there won't be any middle ground.

Pan, respectfully, these three reasons don't make sense to me.

1. You don't like that Obama has risen quickly. It seems to me that if it is, as you suggest, his Charisma combined with the anti-Clinton vote that is making him popular amongst voters that this is not a bad thing. It's just the process. Elections are in large part a popularity contest combined with a smattering of who do you hate less. This is a product of the system rather than the candidates, no?

2. I too am concerned that he will be assassinated but again, that's not an issue with the candidate but rather the potential that someone would be insane enough to do this act. To not support someone because of this fear is the worst sort of prevarication I can think of. Yes, it will cause great upheaval if he is assassinated but IF you think he's worth voting for, it's all worth the risk (and ultimately, it's his risk).

3. This one I am a little unclear about... you fear change?

As for your final point... again, this is an issue with the process rather than the candidate. If the vote is split and Clinton pulls the superdelegates (something I don't see happening if Obama has the popular vote) it will cause problems for the Democrats. But so what? This could happen every time there is a primary. Why worry needlessly about something that is beyond your control?

After 8 years of GWB, people are excited about the prospects who actually can command the English language.

As I've posted elsewhere, Obamania scares me. It's no secret that I am a Clinton supporter, but I do respect Barak and what he stands for. Frankly, one of my turn-offs to his campaign is Obamania; that is the shear undaunted, and often times blind, support a great number of his supporters have specifically for 'his message'. Simply, and down to the core of my being, I feel that the democratic process was intended to be, and is best served by, an educated and objective populace electing their representatives based on rational self-interest in policy matters.

Now both democratic candidates have excellent policy ideas and respectable policy credentials. I prefer Clinton's, but I have no problem seeing that many rational self-interested individuals could prefer Barak's. My problem is that it seems that for most Obamaniacs (who are the loudest and most obvious of his supporters, if not the majority of them) his policy ideas come in a distant second to the emotional appeal of his message.

This certainly is nowhere near all of his supporters or even, necessarily, something he specifically would endorse or intend in an ideal world. However, in my mind it is flirting with danger when a group of people respond so emotionally to a message that the plan becomes incidental. I have no doubt that Barak, and his supporters, have nothing but the best of intentions that I would likely agree with in the vast majority, but that doesn't overcome my uneasiness with Obamaniacs, much less reliances such sentiment for political gains.


http://www.swans.com/library/art14/cmarow98.html

plat: I invite you to consider that passion is a necessary component of politics. Politics is way too dirty and ugly a game for anyone to play if they weren't passionate about it--and I don't mean a passion for politics itself (although, Karl Rove), but passion for the difference that can be made through true leadership.

The only thing that ever EVER changed the world was people who were passionate about that change. Think of MLK and his immediate supporters. Highly emotionally charged bunch, wouldn't you say? And they made (or at the very least least instigated) a profound change in American culture. You think Gandhi wasn't passionate? You think people being dispassionate and detached will get us anything other than more of what we've got right now?

Arrogant much? I wonder how many Obama supporters you've actually talked to, to base this opinion on? Or is it based on a three minute segment you saw on the news? Because we all know how reliable the news is.

I support Obama because of his tech policy, which is the only candidate's policy that's actually developed from 21st Century reality and looks to the future. I support him because of his education policy, which begins with actually FUNDING No Child Left Behind, and also includes initiatives to recruit, prepare, retain and reward educators. I support his intention to have us out of Iraq within 16 months while pressuring Iraqi leaders to reconcile, coupled with a historically unprecedented level of diplomatic outreach across the Middle East. He's the only candidate who can possibly turn around American's piss-poor image in the rest of the world. (Think McCain would be more approved of abroad than Bush? Or that even Clinton would be? I don't think so.) I support his economic policy, which is about strengthening the middle class, improving trade relations (including revising NAFTA so it works), labor rights, domestic industrial stimulus, and reforming lending and bankruptcy.

All the policy details aside, I support him because he's the only candidate I can imagine bringing people together across party lines. He has a long history of bipartisanship--and he's worked in some of the most bitterly divided bodies in American history. His charisma, his ability to hear people and speak to what's important to them... I'm also happy with the way he's been able to draw the indifferent, the young, the disillusioned into the political process. I honestly believe that if there is ANY chance to unify America, it's Barack Obama. And yeah, the guy inspires and moves me.

That specific enough for you?

EDIT: MuadDib: Marowitz shows his shocking lack of research in the first paragraph by assuming that "Will I Am" is a pseudonym for Obama Supporters Industries, Inc. will.i.am is a brilliant R&B performer and producer, front man for the Black Eyed Peas. That Marowitz doesn't bother to find this out sets a sad tone for this piece. Then he Godwins himself in the third paragraph and then throughout the piece. I have a hard time getting with much of anything he says after that--his thesis is: inspiration BAD--because of the NASTY polemic the thing is couched in, INCLUDING the ludicrous and hypocritical appeals to emotion embedded throughout.

Look, folks: people get SCARED by others' inspiration. Change is scary. And the natural human reaction when you see other people inspired by something is cynicism. It's a very normal reaction, and it's also VERY conservative. The thing that sets the left apart is that we're willing to work through that cynicism because we see something possible on the other side of it. The right climbs up on top of their cynicism and makes it their platform, but on the left, we know there's something more, something bigger on the other side of it. A the VERY least, I urge you not to give in to your natural urge to shut down something inspiring that you don't have your own personal hands on.

Who the hell SAYS cool-headed objectivity is better than inspiration and emotion? As if absolute objectivity was even possible! I'll bet I could whip up some heated emotion from the objectivity camp, and I wouldn't even have to try too hard. And what objectivites don't notice is... it's an emotional reaction to inspiration that has them saying what they're saying.

While I don't imagine I share you're exact political bent, your notion about "the politics of fear" has struck me as well. I believe it was around a week ago that I was reading a post in this forum from an Obama supporter that used the phrase "our only hope". That is a red flag to me and really got me to thinking about the mindset of those who seriously believe it. I'm sure, or at least hope, that the member who posted that statement didn't honestly believe so strong a statement, but there are many, especially first time voters, who do. I really don't know which is more frightening to me; the prospect of a large segment of fervent ideologues coming to dominate both parties or what happens to my party, and the future, if those same ideologues become disillusioned, possibly permanently so, were their candidate to not win. That is the danger that Bush's politics of fear (of terrorism) has put his party and this nation in, I can't see another politics of fear (of the political process) ending much better. Differently, because it is focused inward at how we run our own nation, but no better for the spirit of our nation.

...and doesn't have his finger on the "DEPLOY THE TROOPS!" button.

ratbastid,

i've personally spoken with plenty of obama supporters. that 90% of them couldn't articulate current policy is just my guess, but why would that surprise you? i doubt that figure varies much with the general population. i'm not saying obama supporters are dumber than other people, only that their demand for "change" loses legitimacy when they're not sure what they're changing from.

at any rate, you've made the mistake of displaying your own level of knowledge and projecting it on the electorate. if you want to respond to my post, either post factual information or simply deny my bald/unfounded/anecdotal/unscientific assertion with one of your own. you could even trump me by betting 20 cases of beer! i don't doubt you've made your decision with more care than the average voter.

Rat: I'm not claiming Marowitz to be a Noam Chomsky, nor does his knowledge (or lack thereof) of the Black Eyed Peas give me any reason take pause. To be quite honest, I have had no respect for their music since 2004 & 'Where is the Love', but that's a conversation best kept out of the Politics forum. His credentials withstanding, he is not writing a law review note but an op-ed about his take Obamania. A take which speaks to my concerns in a real way. As for the "NASTY polemic thing", I do believe that all the venom in the analogy is lost when he immediately recants that very connection then goes on to refer to Barak as civil, sensitive, intelligent, and inspiring. Take it or leave it, I think that he at least points out that inspiration is blind to it's cause, that is neither inherently good or bad, but it's results are defined by the cause.

Now, about this "change scary" rap that the Obama campaign tries to paint on every non-supporter out there. For Christ sakes, I return your own "Arrogant much?" plus interest. Don't philosophize about the nature of man and change to me or assume just because I don't hop on board the Barak bandwagon that I'm some terror-stricken primate who runs back into his cave for fear of the light. That is the very labelling and fear-mongering that I'm saying is repugnant and scary. Change is the natural order of things, life is nothing less than constant change which is why the Obamaniac "only hope" attitude is simply ridiculous. Neo-conservativism has run it's course, this was readily apparent in the 2006 election season and if not then certainly by the Republican primary campaigns this year. Hell, every candidate is change, it's merely a matter of areas, degrees, and abilities.

Listen, if you'd read my previous post you should have gotten that I am not anti-inspiration, anti-emotion, or anti-passion. As if you couldn't tell, you've invoked my ire by your response despite your quaint labelling of me as an "objectivite". What I am against is placing inspiration, emotion, and passion on a pedestal and letting oneself get swept away by sentiment. You say change only ever happens when people are passionate, but I say lasting real change only happens when people are passionate about an issue, an idea, or a plan that they connect with on it's merits. The reason objectivity, actually attainable or not, should be the goal that one strives for in decision-making is because ends reached in that manner are more likely to weather the test of time and actually be effectuated. Passions are fickle and flighty, one can be let down as easily as uplifted and just as swiftly. What I argue for is temperance and placing the horse before the cart. There is nothing wrong with being inspired by a man's vision, there is something wrong with being inspired by a man without a clear grasp of his vision.

Addendum: It is not my intention to lump you, Rat, into a group with the man before merit supporters. Whether you are or not isn't known to me, nor does it make any real difference one way or the other. I realized while typing that last paragraph that I had been weaving in and out of responding to you specifically and re-making my general argument about such supporters and, rather than delete the entire post and try to hurdle possible misinterpretation. So just know that, while I disagree with your assessment of my position, it is not necessarily my intention to make you the object of that position.

MuadDib--I didn't make this clear in my above post, but I was responding to Marowitz and those who think like him in general much more than I was responding to you personally... Sorry if it seemed otherwise.

We're ALL terror-stricken primates, by the way, our veneer of culture notwithstanding. ;)

I've been feeling much the same thing lately. I'm alright with Obama, but I'm afraid that either during the campaign, or after (if) he gets elected, there's going to be at least one assassination attempt. I think I mentioned that in another political thread... he's just so different from what a significant portion of America is ready for. That's not personal at all... I'd like to see what he could do for the country. But I'm just wondering if the US is ready for it, despite the enthusiasm of his supporters.

Being in Iceland, I am kind of insulated from all the campaign mania (on all sides), and I have never, ever felt particularly "emotional" about politicians. I'll vote as I want to, when the absentee ballot comes to me here, but it won't be a "fervent" vote.

I don't like the uber-enthusiasm of any campaign, for any candidate. I'm not going to "endorse" anyone before voting day, on this election... I'll cast my vote when the time comes, and that's it.

My point isn't that I'm typical. What I'm trying to get to is this: people outside an inspiring phenomenon frequently make the mistaken assumption that those INSIDE the phenomenon are woolly, glassy-eyed cultists who are swept up in thoughtless abandon. This mistaken assumption is commonly made about any inspiring phenomenon, not specifically the Obama movement. It's called cynicism, and as I note above, it's THE common human reaction to other people's inspiration. They're not part of it, they don't get it, so they have to assume there's nothing to it. My point is: that's a MISTAKEN assumption.

Then let me doubly apologize for getting a little snippy with you. First, for misunderstanding your target and, second, just in general, I've been up for over 24 hours doing BS work and I may have allowed myself to take a portion of that frustration out in my post.

That said though, I think you are mis-characterizing Marowitz's critique of Obamania if you're shoring him up as, essentially (and sorry for letting my inner-nerd show), a closet Vulcan. I suppose it's possible that I'm the one projecting onto him and not you, but my reading reveals him to be arguing for the primacy of objectivism, but by no means to the exclusion of inspiration/passion/emotion.

I totally agree with the OP. But who else are we going to swoon for?

Barack Obama
http://www.smartmissionary.com/image...tledGIF-12.gif


John McCain
http://www.bobdole.org/photos/dolesmile5.jpg

oops... that's not Senator McCain, it's a picture of Bob Dole (same thing)
Sorry for the stereotypes, but they sometimes ring true.
Besides, history has proven that an empty suit can beat a Bob Dole every time.

Obama '08! yeah!

I'm not more worried about Obama getting shot at than any other President. Ford was shot at, Reagan got shot, and I believe there have been plots against Clinton and GWB as well (I can't remember anyone going after Carter other than a killer rabbit). There are bad people out there, and every president is at risk. We just have to have confidence in our Secret Service that they know what they're doing and can protect the people they are supposed to protect.

But I am troubled by this messianic aura many people seem to perceive around Obama. That's dangerous. The government can't give you fulfillment or personal salvation - only you can do that. The adulation and exaltation, to me, are dangerous. That's the sort of reverence for the leader that people have in a fascist state. Obama is certainly no fascist, but that impulse in his devotees is a dangerous one. He is just a politician. Yes, a very gifted speaker and, so far as I'm able to tell, a genuinely nice person - but still, just a politician. I don't adore any politician, and I don't think anyone else should either, except the politician's spouse, kids and parents.

I'm isolated from the campaign mania because I limit my intake of media. I'm cautious of what news I read online and Tivo buffers me from most if not all of the campaign advert drivel.

It's a personal choice. I see a headline or two as I walk from the subway station into the office. That's about it until I decide I have a moment or time for the rest of the news. And when I do have time to read about stuff, it's not about the election process.

I know a lot less about what is going on, than you probably think that you do, after one of your "have a moment or time for the rest of the news", yet I am spending several hours a day, attempting to keep informed.

How do you wade in, in the middle of a sequence of events, and satisfy yourself that you are "up to speed", on current events and political happenings? Tell me how you do it, so I can benefit from your methods, so I can spend much less time trying to stay informed.

Much of my time is devoted to reading reporting and commentary about the same events, or issues, from eight to ten different sources. I keep the car radio, during my commute, on SRN talk radio, so I can keep abreast of the political POV and reactions to current events of christian evangelicals.

I don't think I could participate in this forum with any confidence, if I wasn't fairly certain, that, at least in a few areas, I have a thorough grasp of the details.

It's ironic that I perceive myself to have so little credibility here, based on response and lack of responses from so many of my fellow tfp members, considering the time I do spend trying to stay informed, and post from an informed perspective.

I would feel out of place, participating here, if I routinely kept myself closed off from daily news reporting and commentary.

Yes, it would be nice if more of Obama's supporters were also at least somewhat aware of his policies. I suspect there are a ton of Clinton supporters, though, who are equally lacking in knowledge. It wouldn't make for as interesting a news story, but there are plenty of people who will reference things like Clinton's "35 years of experience" as why they support her over Obama.

As for Obama being a "rock star"...part of why people got so crazy about The Beatles is because they were genuinely great and new and exciting for their time. When it comes down to it, I'd rather have people get so excited that they faint over a politician than a musician.

Oh, and btw, personality matters in a president. A lot.

It's almost impossible to accurately predict what a president will be like, based on their policy proclamations (that's not to say they're not worth paying attention to). Our most recent example, Bush, ran in 2000 saying that we should be less involved as the world police. Now look at us.

I really like a lot of Obama's policies: they're rather similar to Clinton's, but where they're different I think they're much better (technology is an issue I'm particularly concerned about). Where Obama comes out far ahead of Clinton, though, is his personality. Obviously it's impossible to truly know the man from my vantage point, but from what I can tell he is much more the kind of person I want in the White House, leading this country, putting a team of advisors together, etc, than Clinton.

Irate, it's good to see you in Politics again. You were missed by this Liberal Loon. :)

You have presented a number of observations that are worthy of discussion. I believe that "Obamania" reported by the press is mostly of their own creation. It is far easier to attract eyeballs for a "cult of personality" story rather than a wonkish study of his policies. I also learned recently that all three campaigns of the frontrunners carefully orchestrate who will be within camera range of the candidate. In Obama's case, there are predominately white faces behind him for the camera to imply broad support, and the very raucus supporters directly in front of him for the enthusiastic cheers. McCain and Clinton do the same for the emphasis they wish to make. Manipulation of voter perception would appear to be Politics 101.

I have an anecdoctal experience that may explain the "swooners". A good friend of mine went to see Obama speak about two years ago. She arrived early and stood in the hot sun without water for two hours before he arrived and began speaking. She dropped like a stone from dehydration and Obama called out to get help to her. I suspect that heat and exhaustion are more the cause of the faintings that have occurred, than an emotional swoon. But once again, the press has a "story" to sell.

I think there may be several things that have given rise to the enthusiastic response to Obama. Others have already described what it feels like to feel hopeful of change in the policies of our government. I think you underestimate the feeling of despair that many citizens have experienced since the premptive war on Iraq and the escalating threats to Iran. I agree with you that Congress and the Judiciary should have been able to check the universal presidency, but don't forget that we had a single party in charge for the majority of the Bush administration.

You have probably heard of Obama being compared to JFK by some of the Kennedy family. That same enthusiastic hope for change existed then, as well. My mother saw something very new and hopeful in JFK after living through the depression and the sacrifices of WWII. I would never underestimate the power of American's who have become optimistic about the future.

Curious observations. I wonder if you've been paying attention to the state of this country over the past 5-7 years, and if you have you must have noted a certain dissatisfaction with the way the current boss is running the country.

Why would it strike you as peculiar that ordinary, everday people stress out over what they perceive as hostile, belligerent, incompetent foreign policy emanating from their own government - and there can be no denying that they do in fact perceive it as such.

As far as the emotional connections people feel towards presidential candidates, what do you expect? People have strong emotional connections to all sorts of unlikely things: stamps, animals, plants, food, guns, jewelry, computers, cellphones, dildos, cars. Presidential candidates are symbols of official, national stances on everyday issues affecting the lives of human beings, not robots. To dismiss these people's opinions as somehow not fully realized or misguided is patronizing at best, outright ignorant at worst.

Look back at the days of JFK's presidency, with talk of a New Frontier, a renewed sense of national confidence, voyages into space, the intelligent handling of the cuban missile crisis. Look at the effect Reagan's policies and optimism had on lifting a sagging economy ("Reaganomics") the fall of the berlin wall, the end of the cold war, and the restoration of respectability to the United States.

Substitute the word "optimism" for "change" and maybe thats what Obama represents.

Actually I agree with this, it is what is creating his popularity, and optimism is great. Shame is going to be served with a shit sandwich of new taxes and a side of class warfare.

As for the fainting though, I'd attribute that more to whatever makes some people swoon so easy, be it the beetles, elvis, or apparently obama.

We experienced a federal debt increase of $399 billion in the last full year of the Bush '41 presidency:


09/30/1992 $4,064,620,655,521.66
09/30/1991 $3,665,303,351,697.03
http://www.treasurydirect.gov/govt/r...ebt_histo4.htm

A program of modest tax increases, by historical comparison, aimed to tax the highest incomes disproportionally, beginning in 1993, resulted in, even with the loss of the stimulative effect to the economy of a prior era of large annual federal debt increases, a dramatic change by the last full year of the Clinton prsidency; a decline in the annual federal debt increase, from $399 billion, just 8 years earlier, to just $18 billion:

09/30/2000 $5,674,178,209,886.86
09/30/1999 $5,656,270,901,615.43
http://www.treasurydirect.gov/govt/r...t/histdebt.htm

In the last full year of the Bush '43 presidency, just 8 years after the US experienced an annual federal debt increase of $18 billion, and after a period marked by tax decreases disproportionally favoring the wealthiest and those with highest incomes, as well as two "rounds" of tax rebate economic stimulation campaigns (as if the stimulative effect to the economy of increasing annual federal debt, so dramatically, needed or could be further enhanced by such rebate checks.....) the annual federal debt increase in fiscal year 2008 <h3>will be $700 billion:</h3>

02/20/2008 $9,294,461,192,747.05
09/30/2007 $9,007,653,372,262.48
http://www.treasurydirect.gov/NP/BPD...application=np

You post as if you are so certain that you have a clear understanding of what it is you object to, in the proposals advanced by the democrats, so
I've read and reread your post, and I cannot figure out, considering recent fiscal history and tax policy in the US, what the fuck you are talking about.

The record demonstrates that the policies you support continuance of have been a fiscal disaster for the country, or are the numbers I've posted not indicative of a disaster, a destructive monumental reversal of the sound taxation and spending policies of the last administration, wedged in between the destructive imbalances of 19 years of Reagan/Bush/Bush debt increases?

Or heat, or standing around for a long time, or being in a large crowd, or not eating breakfast that morning...

This whole fainting thing is COMPLETELY a media creation. People faint at political events all the time, and the accepted practice is for the speaker to pause and compassionately make sure that person is okay. It looks great for the speaker to take care of their fallen supporter like that. I've seen video of both Clintons AND McCain doing it. It's totally no big deal, until somebody in the media latches onto it and makes a video of several instances of it happening and turns it into a phenomenon.

I agree with your point. But don't you think Obama plays it up really well? "Oh, I see we have someone who may have fainted, here give them my water. Let's get some help (back, over, down) here." He's the first person I've noticed doing this. Or is it just that when he does it it ends up on my TV?

http://photos-a.ak.facebook.com/phot...72316_5673.jpg

This is how I feel about Barack. I'm pretty sure that he's actually the second coming of Jesus.

Not only is a ridiculously good orator with pounds of charisma, but I actually believe his policies are sound and I 'trust' what he says is true, more than I've ever trusted a politician in my life.

Maybe it is Obamamania, but I think he'll be amazing WHEN he is elected the next POTUS. See my thread in Politics, "Obama the perfect candidate?" for more.

Also, since I just caught it:

Likewise. We're not all undereducated simpletons who like Obama because he's pretty.

Jinn, if you put aside the fact that Obama is an unusually gifted speaker, very nimble in his public appearances, and charismatic as all hell, and focus solely on his positions and political history, what distinguishes his positions and activities from any other big-city leftish Democrat? His politics are totally conventional. Totally. You might agree or disagree, but he's hardly a groundbreaker or an original political thinker. He's just a plain old liberal Democrat who happens to be very gifted. That is probably good enough for most of the people here, who are liberal Democrats, and that's ok. But let's not make him into something he's not.

My question for all the people who think Obama is the messiah is this: what happens four years from now, when -- even if he is a fabulously successful president, which is far from unlikely given how good his people skills appear to be -- this world continues to be less than perfect, there is still violence and famine and nastiness in the world, there still are scandals and recriminations and poverty, not everything that hurts you has been healed and you still have unfulfilled desires? Will you be able to handle the disappointment? Maybe, step back a second and say -- as you likely will four years from now if Obama has a successful presidency -- he's a politician, he can accomplish some good things, there are limits to what politicians can do. This is the real world, we have to evaluate it rationally.

Messianism isn't rational. It's religious. When Obama starts doing laying-on of hands and healing people's sores, let me know so I can come watch.

I'm going to disagree with you here. His policies are relatively conventional (if such a word can be used to describe the "typical" progressive policies), but his politics are nothing short of radical.

The Democratic approach to bipartisanship that has been predominant since the early Clinton era is what's known as "triangulation". Basically, the candidate slides to the right to capture "the middle"--the moderate or even left-edge-of-conservative vote. That's what has passed for bipartisanship for the last twenty years.

Obama has an entirely different and new approach to bipartisanship and coalition building. He's perceived that even the most conservative Member of Congress (for instance) may be progressive on certain issues. By reaching out across the aisle on a specific, issue-by-issue basis, he's shown himself able to construct bipartisan majorities without sacrificing his own moral or political position.

This is absolutely NOT politics as usual. Look, the man has said it's not out of the question he'd put together a bipartisan cabinet! When was the last time that happened?

i dont understand anything about this word "obmania"
it seems like a silly one-dimensional television meme that speaks entirely to how the rallies look on camera.

i have talked to a fair number of obama supporters and find their range of informed-ness about his policies to be not too much unlike any other range--this being amurica after all, land of wholesale conflation of political choices with other types of consumer activity. so there are system problems, not obama-supporter problems, which are expressed in the levels of buying a politician for his image.

besides, no=one who supported george w bush EVER, AT ALL is in a position to complain about the power of image in dictating political choice.

on the last two posts:

i don't consider obama particularly left in policy terms--that he can be taken as such by our more conservative to extreme-right comrades is an index of how far to the right the center has drifted across the last 20 years--this is an effect of (rapidly imploding) conservative mobilizations, an index of the extent to which conservative memes have infected even the terminologies that get thrown around as indices of relative position

in political terms, i think the ways in which obama's campaign has worked are kinda interesting and at time innovative---but i think the main driver behind much of the enthusiasm that he generates is that many many many many people are quite excited about the possibility of the united states collectively ridding itself of the multi-variate disaster that has been the bush administration.

Actually, ratbastid, it's not as unusual as you might think. I could give you examples, starting with McCain-Feingold, but there's also stuff where, say, Hatch and Kennedy (who are good friends) worked together. It's not that unusual to go issue by issue to build coalitions. That's how stuff gets done. The stark partisan splits tend to be on "hot button" high-visibility questions, and I really doubt that will change. So I do dispute that Obama's politics is a new phenomenon - he is just extremely good at articulating his vision, and he does it in an appealing way. Look, can we agree he is an extremely talented and attractive politician? I just don't think he is much more than that.

Why are we afraid of people who inspire us? Obama is an articulate and inspiring speaker. Hopefully he'll use his ability to lead and inspire people to do go things. Martin Luther King was someone who did the same thing with a similar gift. Hitler apparently had the same gift - have you ever listened to one of Hitler's speeches? I don't speak a word of german, and obviously abhor what he stood for and what he did, but just the sound of his voice makes one sit up and take notice.

In a way, it *is* scary to think that one might be swept up by a powerful speaker. But, on the other hand, the 'narrative' seems to be that Obama's supporters are all brainwashed and charmed by his speaking skills, and are zealots following Obama as a quasi-religious figure. His oratory skills are certainly part of his appeal to some people, but the implication in these stories seems to be we *shouldn't* vote for him *because* he's a good orator. Doesn't make much sense to me.

I'm impressed that you got the Hitler AND MLK Jr. comparison both down in one post.

You can't seperate "gifted speaker" out, I'm sorry. It's a very important part of his personality, and personality is all that makes a "conventional speaker" into a life-changer. If you've ever met someone who had NATURAL charisma and leadership skill, you know that their "power" in terms of realizing goals is ten-fold the power of someone who identical ideals who fails to convince and convey. I'm a firm believer that you can get just about any sane person to do just about every reasonable thing you can come up with if you have the charisma and knowledge to cater the message to them. I'm no master of convincing, but a powerful voice and stature take you a LONG way in the world of people. I've met people who didn't even speak my language that made me want to do whatever they said; not out of fear, but out of physical presence.

Even if I somehow abstract an essential part of what makes him a good person and politician, as you pre-suppose, I don't find any 'traditionalism' to his politics. Sure, he's got to hold some mainstream leftist opinions, like "tax cuts for the middle class and no tax cuts for the rich," but that doesn't make him traditional. Did you know that part of his economic stimulus plan includes things like implementing cost-effective 'next generation' broadband? I can't think of any candidate past or present who knew as much about our dependence on high-tech infrastructure as Obama, nor do I see ANY current one who includes the same level of technology improvement in their economic plan as he does. That's one facet of many, but it's enough for me to say that you're not very familiar with Obama's policies if you think they're the same thing that we've been seeing in 'modern' politics.

I've looked at his voting record and it's predictably big-city liberal. That's not a criticism, it just is.

I agree with you that part of his personality and who he is is the charisma and speaking ability, and to his credit he isn't a fire-breather who can't handle dissent. I like that, and I have to say I think he's a very impressive person. He appears to be personally (as distinct from politically) moderate, with a secure ego, which is very important for someone who will have that much power. All that said, for what purposes will these talents be harnessed? Basically the normal urban Democrat litany, maybe with a couple of twists in there. As I said, that's ok, he's not the first or the only, and as a New Yorker I can tell you most of my friends will love it. But again, let's not delude ourselves he's a great breakthrough.

What he will do, however, is give us a president who's not painful to listen to when he speaks. Since presidents are on the tube a lot, that's something. It's not the second coming of Jesus, but it's something.

wouldn't the composition of congress determine more about what can and can't happen than how good a speaker obama is?

just saying...

to some degree, sure. But Jimmy Carter didn't get all that much done with a Dem Congress, and neither did Bill Clinton his first two years.

loquitor....I would suggest that the examples you gave of bi-partisanship have been the exception rather than the rule.

The "bi-partisan split", especially as initiated by the Republicans, goes far beyond the "hot-button, high visibility" issues.

Examples? How about the Hastert rule of the former Speaker of the House, which effectively prevented bi=partisanship.

Hastert's position, which is drawing fire from Democrats and some outside groups, is the latest step in a decade-long process of limiting Democrats' influence and running the House virtually as a one-party institution. Republicans earlier barred House Democrats from helping to draft major bills such as the 2003 Medicare revision and this year's intelligence package. Hastert (R-Ill.) now says such bills will reach the House floor, after negotiations with the Senate, only if "the majority of the majority" supports them.

BTW, Pelosi has no such policy. If there was a "Pelosi rule" which requried support by the "majority of the majority" the House would not have passed many of the Iraq funding bills without some limitations or mandates on Bush.

Or the delaying tactics by the Republicans in the Senate to block even debate on proposed legislation.

This year Senate Republicans are threatening filibusters to block more legislation than ever before, a pattern that's rooted in — and could increase — the pettiness and dysfunction in Congress.

The Democrats used such tactics far less often when in the minority.

Not to completely exonerate the Democrats, but for the last 20+ years, they have been far more willing to compromise and seek workable bi-partisan majorities than the Republicans.

But then I am a partisan.

FYI - take with a huge (premature) grain of salt, but McCain leads both Obama and Clinton in polls featured in today's LA Times.

here's the link if interested LA Times poll, Feb 27, 2008

The polls, with a huge (premature) grain of salt, are all over the place.

But, the only ones where a candidate's lead is outside the margin of error (+ or - 3%), as well as having 50% or over, are the CBS/NY TImes and AP polls:

AP: Obama - 51, McCain - 41
CBS: Obama - 50, McCain - 38

http://pollingreport.com/wh08gen.htm

um, dc_dux? The House pretty much always was run as a one-party dictatorship. Under both parties.

The Senate was supposed to be different. It hasn't worked out that way recently for any number of reasons, with each party saying the other started it, or set it off, or what have you. Suffice it to say no one is covering himself in glory over there. However - when stuff has gotten done, it's gotten done by building issue by issue. Legislation is passing, you know. And remember - the majority changed in 11/06 and the new leadership wanted to be aggressive in pushing stuff, so of course there's some pushback. That should settle down over time, I'd imagine. Unless there's another change of control.

Also, I would argue that in the Senate, Harry Reid has been a lamentably poor manager of both the Senate and of his own party's Senators. Pelosi not anywhere near as bad over in the House; she's much more in tune with what is achievable. Or so it looks to me.

If you think the House under any recent Democratic Speaker had anything like the Hastert rule, where a "majority of the majority" had to be on board BEFORE even a bill could be brought to the floor for debate or before any amendments could be considered.... or the pervasiveness of flaunting disdain for House rules, I would suggest you recheck your Congressional history.

A NY Times editorial by Norm Ornstein and Thomas Mann lay it out pretty well...describing the policies and practices of the Republican majority House:

...Over the past five years (2001-2006), the rules and norms that govern Congressional deliberation, debate and voting - what legislative aficionados call "the regular order" - have routinely been violated, especially in the House of Representatives, and in ways that mark a dramatic break from custom.

Roll call votes on the House floor, which are supposed to take 15 minutes, are frequently stretched to one, two or three hours. Rules forbidding any amendments to bills on the floor have proliferated, stifling dissent and quashing legitimate debate. Omnibus bills, sometimes thousands of pages long, are brought to the floor with no notice, let alone the 72 hours the rules require. Conference committees exclude minority members and cut deals in private, sometimes even adding major provisions after the conference has closed. Majority leaders still pressure members who object to the chicanery to vote yea in the legislation's one up-or-down vote....

...Some of the abuses are straightforward breaches of the rules. The majority Republicans bypass normal procedures and ignore objections that parliamentary rules have been violated. They then reframe substantive issues as procedural matters that demand party discipline. Other abuses do not violate the rules, but they do transgress longstanding practice...

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/01/19/op...9ornstein.html

As to the Senate and your observation:
The reason is clear and the record is indisputable:

Nearly 1 in 6 roll-call votes in the Senate this year have been cloture votes. If this pace of blocking legislation continues, this 110th Congress will be on track to roughly triple the previous record number of cloture votes — 58 each in the two Congresses from 1999-2002, according to the Senate Historical Office.

This purely Republican delaying tactic is unprecedented by any measure.

On this we agree.

Reid has been a terrible majority leader and Pelosi has been effective as both the party leader in the House and more importantly, as the third most powerful elected official in the country, in presiding over a (small "d") democratic House.

With regards to the partisanship issue...I think the big problem with the way things are done these days is that the attitude is one of 'party over everything' - that the *most* important thing is to get, and then keep your party in power, regardless of what a given legislator believes. This is especially true of the republican side, but the democrats have the same problem. Political parties are fine as a broad coalition of like-minded individuals...but the system we've got now tends towards the idea that political party is the most important thing. Get more power for The Party. Trash the other party, get more of your party elected. Always look towards the next election. We must fix this to get a functioning government again...I just don't know how to do it.

More parties might help...but splitting into a three party system is unlikely - a third party would almost certainly take more from one party than the other, and that would leave the 'intact' party with more power. On the other hand, the republican party seems to be tearing itself apart, so we'll see.

Lest you think Obama isn't just another politician, get a load of this.

methinks you're whacking away at a strawman, loquitor.

seriously--who do you imagine you are arguing against?

if you actually talk to anybody in particular--which you're doing here--you find that nobody believes anything remotely like what you impute to them about obama.

the position you argue against seems only to make sense as a generality--like "obamania" does--a tv-meme.

i take it that this is a curious expression of your being-skeptical.
well lots of people are skeptical.
geez.

The last big city liberal to run for president (and stand a chance) was... um... Kennedy, actually. Go figure.

Loquitor is not that far off base here, if at all. I know many people that look at Barak the way Loq is talking about. The first stage of recovery is admitting there's a problem, and Obamania does exist outside of media fantasy. Many people (present company excluded, I'm sure) need to admit they are absolutely in love with Obama far out of rational proportion, then they need to reassess their emotional connection to the man to bring in line with his political reality, then decide rather to support or not support him. Whatever way they come out is perfectly fine, I'm not arguing against Barak here just Obamania. It's a disease, but there is a cure.

muadlib:

i suppose one could say the same thing about conservatives who found cowboy george to be appealing because he was such a shitty speaker and so was "one of us" like they said in that fine 1930s film "freaks."

i suppose you could say it about anyone, really.

like i posted above somewhere, to the extent that politics are understood in this fine fine "democracy" as a type of consumer choice, what you complain of (or project? it's hard to know, isn't it?) about obama followers seems a symptom of a structural problem.

how detailed an understanding of the mode of being particular to peanut butter does one need to prefer skippy to jiff? do you really need to reduce peanut butter to a set of predicates that distinguish it absolutely from the riot of non-peanut butters in the world to make a consumer choice?

if it is a structural problem--something endemic to the way the american political system operates--that voters often make choices for superficial reasons (THE SHOCK OF THAT IDEA IS ENORMOUS) then what's specific about obama's constituency?

general question:

how can a thread like this possibly get beyond dueling anecdotes?

i know a set of people who do not fit the description the good comrade i.p. outlined in the op, and you know a set of people that fits it.
it is entirely possible that both of us know a larger set made up of some who do and some who dont.
it's likely even.

so there's nowhere to go with this, is there?

Yes that's quite shoc... oh, wait, it's bollocks

well, someone isn't levelling.
And there'll be some other thing tomorrow anyway. This is politics, there always is.
Look, he's a good guy to all appearances, but please, don't pretend he's something special.

He's a politician for Christs-sake. You might as well get excited over your local used car salesman.

Yeah. My point precisely. And it's not even clear that the story in fact is not true.

Um, what the hell?

So:

o This CTV outfit quotes 'a Canadian source', saying that Obama (*and* Clinton) called The Canadian Government to let them know their rhetoric on NAFTA is just rhetoric.
o The Obama (*and* Clinton) campaigns deny it.
o The Canadian Government agency that the clinton and obama campaigns supposedly 'warned' deny it.
o Some chick calls the CTV news program, who stand by their story.

So, these CTV guys have no source they'll quote. They have nothing but a baseless allegation of a fairly minor case of politicians talking out of both sides of their mouths, with no proof at all.

Sure, if it were true, I'd be disappointed in both candidates. But until or unless it's proven true, who the fuck cares at all?

Canadians

If they called up the Mexican ambassator and said that, it might be a bigger issue for me. Canada is much closer or exceeds the US in environmental, wages, and government services. So, I'm not worried if some jobs move up to Canada.

Citing Taylor Marsh about Obama is as useless as citing the Discovery Institute about evolution.

I don't think anyone in this thread has tried to say Obama is better than he is, though there's certainly a few folks determined to prove to themselves that he's less than he is. That's the point of discourse, of course, but try and stay away from shit sources please.

Anyway, what's the bad thing about promising to renegotiate a trade deal to improve labor and environmental standards?

The bad thing would be how the loss of NAFTA could result in a net loss for the US. The US has a sweetheart deal with Canada with regards to Canada's oil. Make no mistake that if NAFTA were to be open for re-negotiation that oil would be on the table... and as Canada is the US's biggest supplier of oil I would be a huge loss to the US (and a potentially huge gain to Canada... at least in that sector).

And this is just one part of many that are a net benefit to the US.

See, my read on the stuff about Canada was that of course Obama didn't mean he was just going to pull us out of NAFTA, and of course Obama was just posturing for political purposes, and wanted to reassure the Canadians of that. He's way too smart to actually think that NAFTA has been bad for the country, and he's way too smart to think that as a result of NAFTA jobs have moved to China (!), and he's also way too smart to actually think that it's acceptable to sign a treaty and then just walk away from it and then think people will actually still do business with you later.

That he is supposed to have told the Canadians "I don't really mean it" is to my mind a plus, though it does show he's just another politician - and that's not necessarily a negative, because every officeholder is. He's just not the messiah.

But I did chuckle when I saw this online:<br><IMG SRC="http://bp1.blogger.com/_pNJFZtinpKY/R8cAgA0YR1I/AAAAAAAAC-8/qvuqI5-Iab8/s1600/Obamessiah.jpg">

Not to retread roachboy's tires or anything, loquitor, but I invite you to consider that the messianic view of Obama you're decrying is as much your creation as the decrying of it.

Nobody has said he's the second coming. That picture is whatever version of reductio ad absurdum involves exaggerating others' statements beyond the ridiculous. Augmento ad absurdum? I don't know. My point is, the reaction against "Obamania" is a reaction against a myth. You may as well be reacting against unicorns and leprechauns. That's what roachboy meant by "straw man".

Of course he's a politician. In my view he's the politician with the best chance of transforming America--his language is transformative, and all transformation is created first in language. But "Obamania" is a myth. He has loyal supporters, as do Clinton, McCain, Huckabee, and Paul.

In fairness, I did.. earlier in the thread. But it was in jest.

I think Obama is awesome for his:
Charisma
Education and Experience
Technology
Economy
Health Care
Foreign Policy
Bipartisanship
Religion

I don't like his position on gun control, but that's because im a crazy gun-toting ultra-liberal. I don't think he's the Messiah literally, but I do think he's the best politician I've seen in 15 years.

All politicians make extravagant claims and posit themselves as THE solution for the ails of a country. But it is their PERSONALITY and how you "feel" about them that ultimately determines if you BELIEVE what they're saying. I think Hillary believes what she's saying, but I don't like her as a person, so it's hard to BELIEVE her. Obama has a good slogan; "Change I can BELIEVE in."

yep, he's a politician. His people did in fact tell the Canadians that Obama didn't mean it when he said he wants to reopen NAFTA - the Canadians named names, and now the Obama campaign has gone silent.

Yup, just another politician. And please, people are passing out at his rallies. It's almost like the fundies dancing with snakes. I dind't make this up. There are plenty of people out there who really do think they'll get some form of redemptino through the politics of Barack. To my mind that's both sad and delusional, and those people are settign themselves up for a big disappointment when he turns out to be just another flawed human being - no matter how talented he is (and he is very talented).

And by the way, I think he's likely to be the next president, so even though I do wish him well, I still think the people who make him out to be the next coming of whoever are in for a big letdown.

loquitor:

Dude, I'm sorry, I really don't get it.

From the article you linked to:

So, the canadian government still denies it. The obama camp denies it, and the 'source' is still anonymous. The anonymous source also says it '.it was perhaps a miscommunication'.

So, what the hell? If this is absolutely true, it is a fairly minor issue, and there's still no proof. We have on anonymous guy's word for it. Ignore.

I read it twice this morning and kept thinking I must be missing something.

I agree "where's the beef?"

Obama is a genuinely likable public speaker. Public speaking is huge. Public speakers that can't get argued into a corner and can stand up for themselves without umming 20 times in 5 minutes stand out. Obama is black. I Hate Niggers is still a common lifestyle where I'm from and he represents a nation that is changing for the better, if on no point other than accepting a black man as a leader.

Is it true that most Obama supporters don't know his policies? I'd believe it. But when you see a confident, educated, american dream black man rising to the top and gaining respect from an entire country you can't help but want him to succeed even further.

This is irresponsible of me, but I want him to win because my youngest childhood memories are of President Bush senior on TV and ever since there's been 2 families controlling the whole country. I'm sick of it. Im also sick of the country's current spending and reputation around the world and I don't think a Republican president can change any of that.

The source was Austan Goolsbee. He was named. Who in the embassy denied it, and why has the Obama campaign gone silent?

Look, I honestly think Obama is NOT going to upend NAFTA. Anyone with any sense who knows how these things work understands it is good for the country. Obama pandered - just like any other politician panders - because voters don't want NAFTA explained, they want their pain assuaged. Goolsbee is a highly respected economist and he knows damn well that Obama isn't going to upend NAFTA - it's Goolsbee's area of expertise. When Goolsbee comes forward and says he didn't have the conversation that he is said to have had, I'll believe the denials from the politicians (and yes, the Canadian embassy is politicians).

fwiw, here's a pretty good summary of the whole Obama/Goolsbee/NAFTA business played out, now that we have more facts:

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/20...842/300/469572

Holy shit, I'm surprised! :confused: :confused:

Surprised? Why? I don't get it. Or are you being ironical?

Ironical indeed.

Has anyone heard anything about who Obama may be having as Vice-President, or the rest of his cabinet for that matter?

If I had to bet? The name Clinton won't be on any short lists for anything.

I still think the Dems will figure out a way to lose this thing.

Clinton's more seasoned at dealing with the GOP slime machine while Obama has a Teflon coating of sorts. But at the rate they're going any advantage will be long gone by mid summer.

Agreed.I hope not.I think Obama is perfectly capable of dealing with the Republicans, but you're right that at the rate the Democratic election is going they'll likely lose their advantage over time at this rate.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/...e3916817.shtml

Great article.

I'll be very happy if Obama wins and we don't hear the name Clinton again for many years. What she's doing is bad for Democrats and bad for America.

The thinking in Hillary's campaign is probably something like, if they can't win the primary then damage Obama so much that he can't win the general. That way they can take another run at it in 4 years rather than waiting for 8 years.

Agreed

I hope you're wrong but fear you're right.


I'm convinced at this point Hillary will say and or do anything to get elected. If she ends up destroying the party in her attempt so be it. I mean she's singing the praises of John McCain now in an effort to hurt Obama. Like that's not going to be repeated on a 20 minute loop on Fox News in the fall. It's like she feels the nomination is her right, she's earned it already and how dare anyone challenge her path to the White House. It's damn the torpedoes, full speed ahead, if the ship sinks... I'll have a leg up in 2012.

I have been looking around for information on this, but have not found anything specifically. So if anyone has heard anything, please share. Or even better if you have a link to something.

Does anyone know where Obama stands on the issue of Israel / Palestine? I heard Hillary flip-flop that so many times I don’t really know where she is at on that. I know exactly where McCain’s mindset is at on that subject.

I'm lost. What information are you looking for?

What his views are on how to handle the situation there. Normally, I would say the U.S. really may not have such a say without the UN, but with the amount of aid given it changes things. (Speaking of aid; both weapons and $$$- what his views are on that as well)

Well, did you try here:

http://www.barackobama.com/issues/fo...licy/#onisrael

So, pretty pro-Israel - more pro-Israel sounding than would personally like, but considering the political climate here in the US, anything less would probably get one eaten alive.

Yeah I guess I missed it the first time going through his site. Thanks. I suppose its political suicide for any candidate to mention even handedness.

Well, my hope is that it's possible to be evenhanded within the context of the views described on that website. A commitment to Isreal and recognition of their right to defend themselves doesn't preclude a commitment to Palestine and recognition of the Palestinian people's right to defend themselves. It also doesn't necessarily mean supporting Isreal's destructive policies - like the announcement today of new 'settlements', and the various well-documented atrocities committed by Isreal. :-/

OTOH, I may be reading to much into it, and Obama will be just as bad as our recent past presidents in this regard. Ultimately, we can't fix Isreal and Palestine's problem...both sides have to simultaneously realize that the blood of their children is worth more than land.

The Times of London reported today on the bursting of the Obama bubble, and has articulated pretty much what I have been saying for months about Obama:

If Rezko and Wright are the best people can do at "exposing Obama's past," then I'm happy to see them do it. Both are complete non-issues.

That's fine, SM. If it's just a question of what issues you find relevant in making the choice, that's normal politics. All I was saying (maybe I wasn't clear) is that Obama is not something qualitatively different from other politicians, except for his charisma and speaking ability, which really are astoundingly good. In other respects he's just a garden variety big-city leftish pol - which is OK, because the city I live in is full of them, and they're nice people. But they're not anything special.

He's been off-message the last couple weeks, no question. He's said that the Wright business "shook him up" and pointed out how much he'd descended into infighting and campaigning-as-usual, and that had hurt his numbers. So I expect to see a return to the high-minded approach that struck such a chord with so many people a month or so back.

Predicting the political death of politicians is standard fare on a slow news day. Here's yet another Person From Obama's Past. We'll see how it plays out.

/me pines for an "Obama is my co-pilot" bumper sticker. I'll put it right next to the "Bush/Cheney '08" one that I also want to get. Why do I always want the bumper stickers that will get my ass kicked?

I am not predicting Obama's political death. I'm just saying he is merely a politician - a very talented one, charismatic and clever, but still only a politician. He has baggage just like everyone else.

again--you do you think you're surprising with this, loquitor? you've been stating the perfectly obvious over and over as if you've just descended from the Mount dressed like charlton heston.

seriously...this is a kind of "duh" point.

well, ok, roachboy. I just want to make sure I'm not misunderstood on this. I don't have anything against Obama - I kind of like him, actually - I just found a lot of the worship stuff to be creepy.

i think the worship of public figures is creepy too------when i find it.

but i haven't found it amongst the obama supporters that i have talked to or have read stuff from.
i *did* see stuff couched in these terms on television--but who the hell thinks television infotainment is accurate?

dunno, buddy, those fainting women at the rallies was sort of a giveaway to me........

buddy?

dense crowds, eh? like lots of people packed into a fairly small area?

The cure for the handful of people who fainted at Obama rallys is pretty simple.

Chairs, water bottles and better ventilation in the rooms.

I guess you missed the post a month ago where I mentioned having seen video of Hillary, McCain, AND Huckabee dealing with fainters in their audiences?

It's not about adulation. It's about having eaten breakfast that morning.