View Poll Results: "Obamulation" -----

Voters
2. You may not vote on this poll
  • All hat and no cows ... and the Dems now have a carboard cutout with a cheering section

    1 50.00%
  • He has a dream ..... ZZZZZzzzz .... maybe someday he'll talk in his sleep

    0 0%
  • The dream will become a nightmare soon enough .... when the s**t hits the fan

    1 50.00%
  • Anybody got "change", there's a toll booth up ahead

    0 0%
Multiple Choice Poll.
Results 1 to 4 of 4

Thread: Something called "Obamulation"

  1. #1
    DarylB Guest

    Default Something called "Obamulation"

    Here's an article to read, and a poll to take....

    Quote Originally Posted by Slate
    The Totally Coolest Candidate Ever
    Can Obama become too hip for his own good?
    By John Dickerson
    Posted Friday, Feb. 15, 2008, at 8:58 PM ET
    Barack Obama just seems to get cooler and cooler. He's the most popular topic on the New York Times topics page, ahead of even the Westminster Dog Show. Internet widgets allow you to see what great things Barack Obama has done for you (he mowed your lawn). At Slate we also had fun with the cult of Obama. And on the New York subway Friday morning, one of our copy editors, Ellen Tarlin, heard one woman joke to another: "Obama, will you pick me up after my noninvasive minor surgical procedure?" To which the other replied: "Obama, will you hold my hair back when I puke?" (The two went on to discuss the merits of J. Crew vs. Banana Republic. Seriously.) The parlor games go on. My commute is shorter since I started traveling with Barack Obama. This burrito has a real Obama to it. In this cold? Not without your Barack Obama.

    Among a crowd of hip and stylish Democrats, announcing one's skepticism about the cool kid would totally dampen the party. Nor is the dynamic just true for young people. John Lewis, the venerable civil rights hero and congressman, put words to this feeling recently. "In recent days, there is a sense of movement and a sense of spirit," he said, suggesting that he might switch his superdelegate vote from Hillary Clinton to Obama. "Something is happening in America and people are prepared and ready to make that great leap."

    If you insist on being that party-killing skeptic, it either means you're a Washington cynic, supporting the worst elements of Clinton's campaign, or you're cluelessly out of step with the sway of the culture. On Facebook, people write about dreams featuring Obama. There is only one correct reaction to the will.i.am "Yes We Can" video, and that is to start chanting along. That's why the Obama campaign sent it out to supporters. He is the sun, the moon, the Ambien, and the Red Bull.

    Big deal. People like him. That usually happens with the front-runners. They get more votes, and then they win. (Although with these maddening Democratic Party apportionment rules, I think winning also requires hopping on one foot.) But isn't there a natural limit to our enthusiasm for to this kind of sweeping phenomenon? Isn't the generation that Obama has so successfully courted usually the first to toss overhyped products, even the overhyped products with which they were at first so enthralled? More generally, shouldn't Democrats who have complained that George Bush was elected on the strength of a popularity contest be nervous that this blossoming Obamadulation is getting out of hand?

    So far, no one seems to much care. There have been a few pieces from columnists questioning the messianic impulse with Obama, and a mocking Web site, but that's it for backlash. OK, so I'll say it: Some of Obama's supporters have gone around the bend. There was the woman in New Hampshire who compared him to Christ. There was Maria Shriver's comparison of the candidate to the state of California, with the rhetorical fervor usually seen only after a preacher shouts, "You are healed!"

    There is also plenty of self-hype to knock down. Obama is not as bold as he claims and doesn't tell as many hard truths as he professes to. His Senate record of bipartisanship is fine as far as it goes, but that isn't as big a deal as he makes it seem. Cooperating with Republicans on nuclear proliferation and lobbying reform is not nearly as hard, nor does it require the same skills, as forging agreement on taxes and spending, judicial nominations, or electronic surveillance. On the day Sen. Patrick Leahy endorsed Obama and I asked him what problem Obama could solve with his powers of bipartisanship, the Democrat from Vermont asserted Kennedy parallels rather than name one.

    The good news for Obama is that even if he's not as bold as he claims, he has been bolder on the stump than Clinton. Maybe he's not the Senate's bipartisan maestro, but it's hard to find Republicans who leave her rallies in tears. And so far, the people who are making the case that he's overhyped are generally aligned with Hillary Clinton, which makes the charge seem too political to have merit. On Tuesday, after Obama trounced her again in three primaries, Clinton referred to the Texas expression "all hat and no cattle." She was referring to George Bush, but she was hoping to conjure the image of Obama without cows as well. In the mildly astringent ad Clinton is playing in Wisconsin, she taunts Obama by saying that instead of wanting to face hard questions in a debate, he only wants to speechify airy platitudes.

    This is the central argument in the closing Clinton assault. Her new attack line is that Obama's in the speaking business while she's in the solutions business. (She's also apparently in the slogans business; this is a repackaging of her previous claim from New Hampshire to be "a doer not a talker.")

    But the Clinton team has been pushing the overhyped charge for months without getting far. When Obama announced his health-care plan almost a year ago, it was to beat back the rap that he wasn't substantive enough to offer detailed policy proposals. Now the candidate deflects Clinton by telegraphing that he's about to be boring, as he did before a recent economic speech. "Today I want to take it down a notch," he said, saying his speech would be "a little more detailed, a little longer, with not as many applause lines." It's all about managing expectations. Obama also seeks to minimize his policy-related differences with Clinton, elevating his power to persuade as the reason to choose between them.

    There's another external reason Obama may not fall from the supercool perch he now occupies. It was Hillary Clinton who was supposed to be the beneficiary of unstoppable popularity, or at least support. She was the inevitable, untouchable candidate. And then Democrats said, hey, wait a minute, and to second place she fell. Now Clinton has got to hope that she can get the voters to say that again, before it's too late to stop the hype.

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    801

    Default Re: Something called "Obamulation"

    I think push comes to shove Americans in large numbers across the board will choose a leader who has given his entire life to the service of the country (including being tortured for 5 years by our enemies past) over someone with little experience (and I know that Bush was no better) and big promises that would be hard to deliver. As far as I am concerned, Obama has proven nothing to me yet.
    We occasionally stumble over the truth but most of us pick ourselves up and hurry off as if nothing had happened.

    Sir Winston Churchill

  3. #3
    DarylB Guest

    Unhappy Re: Something called "Obamulation"

    Here's an article from the left, actually posted in "The Huffington Post":

    Quote Originally Posted by Seth Swirsky
    Explaining the Left's Hunger for Obama

    Posted February 22, 2008 | 07:45 PM (EST)

    He has passed no significant legislation, is head of no official movement, has never run a business and, until he gave a speech at the Democratic National Convention in 2004, barely anyone had ever heard of him. And yet, Barack Obama appears poised to be the Democrats' standard bearer, with a following that now consistently fills basketball arenas, in state after state, with 20,000 supporters who hang on his every word (or sneeze), cheer his pronouncements, and regularly swoon into faints.

    What can possibly explain the cult-like following surrounding this silver-tongued, political neophyte? There must be something more.

    That "more" is a deep hunger among the left for someone who can restore, not the country, but the battered faith liberals have in themselves.

    The last four decades have not been kind to the left. A thumbnail timeline elucidates this:

    Riots at the 1968 Democratic Convention showing a party in total disarray; the Lion of Liberalism, Senator Ted Kennedy, trying to save his political life instead of Mary Jo Kopechne's at Chappaquiddick; the landslide defeat of George McGovern in 1972; and the disaster that was known as the presidency of Jimmy Carter (1976-1980).

    In the '80s, Ronald Reagan successfully won the Cold War without a shot being fired, while Democrats were left holding their "No Nukes" placards, and Walter Mondale and Michael Dukakis were overwhelmingly defeated in the elections of 1984 and 1988, respectively.

    Although, Bill Clinton's victory in 1992 was the last time the left pumped its collective fist in the air, his presidency was irrevocably damaged by numerous sex scandals, the last of which ended in impeachment. Add in the debacle of "Hillarycare" and it's no wonder that the left considered the Clinton presidency a great let down.

    In the 2000s, the defeats continued with the election of the supposedly "stupid" or "evil" (take your pick) George W. Bush in 2000. There was the defeat of Senate Majority Leader, Tom Daschle in 2002 (coupled with the House and Senate falling to the Republicans) and 2004 brought the defeat of John Kerry (a candidate Democrats never liked) again to Bush.

    All these defeats -- along with the tragic deaths of liberal icons over the years like Bobby Kennedy and Paul Wellstone -- make obvious why the last four decades have eroded the psyche of those on the left.

    And then came Obama who like a savior from nowhere has made liberals feel good about who they are again -- because feeling good is what mostly defines them.

    This fall, the Republican candidate will wage a standard campaign against Obama, highlighting the truly vast differences on policy between them. But most Obama supporters don't care about those differences. The enthusiasm they have for The Candidate -- in light of his tissue-paper-thin résumé and lack of substantive new ideas -- confirms that the only thing they truly care about is his unparalleled ability to restore their long-dormant good feeling about being liberal again.
    Jimmy Carter II

  4. #4
    DarylB Guest

    Unhappy Re: Something called "Obamulation"

    Here's an article from the left, actually posted in "The Huffington Post":

    Quote Originally Posted by Seth Swirsky
    Explaining the Left's Hunger for Obama

    Posted February 22, 2008 | 07:45 PM (EST)

    He has passed no significant legislation, is head of no official movement, has never run a business and, until he gave a speech at the Democratic National Convention in 2004, barely anyone had ever heard of him. And yet, Barack Obama appears poised to be the Democrats' standard bearer, with a following that now consistently fills basketball arenas, in state after state, with 20,000 supporters who hang on his every word (or sneeze), cheer his pronouncements, and regularly swoon into faints.

    What can possibly explain the cult-like following surrounding this silver-tongued, political neophyte? There must be something more.

    That "more" is a deep hunger among the left for someone who can restore, not the country, but the battered faith liberals have in themselves.

    The last four decades have not been kind to the left. A thumbnail timeline elucidates this:

    Riots at the 1968 Democratic Convention showing a party in total disarray; the Lion of Liberalism, Senator Ted Kennedy, trying to save his political life instead of Mary Jo Kopechne's at Chappaquiddick; the landslide defeat of George McGovern in 1972; and the disaster that was known as the presidency of Jimmy Carter (1976-1980).

    In the '80s, Ronald Reagan successfully won the Cold War without a shot being fired, while Democrats were left holding their "No Nukes" placards, and Walter Mondale and Michael Dukakis were overwhelmingly defeated in the elections of 1984 and 1988, respectively.

    Although, Bill Clinton's victory in 1992 was the last time the left pumped its collective fist in the air, his presidency was irrevocably damaged by numerous sex scandals, the last of which ended in impeachment. Add in the debacle of "Hillarycare" and it's no wonder that the left considered the Clinton presidency a great let down.

    In the 2000s, the defeats continued with the election of the supposedly "stupid" or "evil" (take your pick) George W. Bush in 2000. There was the defeat of Senate Majority Leader, Tom Daschle in 2002 (coupled with the House and Senate falling to the Republicans) and 2004 brought the defeat of John Kerry (a candidate Democrats never liked) again to Bush.

    All these defeats -- along with the tragic deaths of liberal icons over the years like Bobby Kennedy and Paul Wellstone -- make obvious why the last four decades have eroded the psyche of those on the left.

    And then came Obama who like a savior from nowhere has made liberals feel good about who they are again -- because feeling good is what mostly defines them.

    This fall, the Republican candidate will wage a standard campaign against Obama, highlighting the truly vast differences on policy between them. But most Obama supporters don't care about those differences. The enthusiasm they have for The Candidate -- in light of his tissue-paper-thin résumé and lack of substantive new ideas -- confirms that the only thing they truly care about is his unparalleled ability to restore their long-dormant good feeling about being liberal again.
    Jimmy Carter II

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •