Barack Obama's Messiah Complex
| Wed Feb. 13, 2008 8:10 AM PST
Barack Obama has a messiah complex and no one will convince me otherwise.
You can find the prepared version of last night's victory speech here, and you can video of his delivery here. Comparing the two reveals that Obama improvises quite a bit, and does so impressively. But what he improvises is some awfully heady, almost messianic, stuff.
Follow me after the jump.
Continues Below
Continued From Above
Here's a lengthy improvised section that I transcribed off the video. It's gorgeous, especially when you hear the crowd respond to it. But Obama puts himself in some exclusive company.
Nothing worthwhile in this country has ever happened unless somebody, somewhere is willing to hope. Somebody is willing to stand up.
Somebody who is willing to stand up when they are told "No you can't" and instead they say, "Yes we can."
That's how this country was founded. A group of patriots declaring independence against a mighty British empire—nobody gave them a chance—but they said, "Yes we can." That's how slaves and abolitionists resisted that wicked system, and how a new president charted a course to ensure we would not remain half slave and half free.
That's how the greatest generation—my grandfather fighting in Patton's Army, my grandmother staying at home with a baby and still working on a Bomber assembly line—how that greatest generation overcame Hitler and fascism, and also lifted themselves up out of a Great Depression.
That's how pioneers went West when people told them it was dangerous, they said, "Yes we can." That's how immigrants traveled from distant shores when people said their fates would be uncertain, "Yes we can." That's how women won the right to vote, how workers won the right to organize, how young people like you traveled down South to march and sit in and go to jail, and some were beaten and some died for freedom's cause. That's what hope is. That's what hope is.
That's what hope is, Madison.
That moment when we shed our fears and our doubts. When we don't settle for what the cynics tell us we have to accept. Because cynicism is a sorry sort of wisdom. When we instead join arm in arm and decide we are going to remake this country, block by block, precinct by precinct, county by county, state by state. That's what hope is.
There's a moment in the life of every generation, when that spirit has to come through if we are to make our mark on history. And this is our moment. This is our time.
This is our moment to do what? To march? To organize? No. To vote for Obama. As if simply by voting for one man, we make a mark upon this country as indelibly as those who fought the Nazis or sat at lunch counters.
But the easiness of Obama's movement isn't what bothers me most. I am profoundly troubled that any candidate would chart the course of American history as follows (and I'm rearranging Obama's history here to make it more chronological):
American Revolutionaries -> Manifest Destiny -> Slaves/Abolitionists -> Suffragettes -> the Labor Movement -> the Greatest Generation -> the Civil Rights Movement -> Himself.
Does this post play unhelpfully into the pernicious and growing Obamaism-as-cult meme that we'll likely see repeated over and over by the right wing if Obama gets the nomination? It does. Sorry. But Obama's rhetoric makes an undeniable suggestion: that his election, not an eight-year administration that successfully implements his vision for America, would represent a moment in America of the grandest, most transformative kind. And that's a bit much.
Comments
The sign of a true Messiah Complex is his ability to fool so many with so little. People are looking for meaning and this is what Mr. Obama is plundering.
Frankly, I think he is one of the scariest men to run for office aside from George Bush. He makes GW look like a middle schooler in the Messiah business.
But why leave out the reasons why we should worry:
------------------------
WHY WAS OBAMA AGAINST THE WAR? The recent report of the Obama Rezko and Nadhmi Auchi connection was mind boggling to me because of one elemental factor: Auchi, an Iraqi billionaire with connections to Saddam Hussein and the Ba'athist regime and his wife both are political donors to Obama's campaign I am even more perplexed today when I came across this entry by Nibras Kazimi, a visiting Scholar at the Hudson Institute in Washington DC. who writes a weekly column on the Middle East for the New York Sun, and a monthly column for the Prospect Magazine (UK) and whose "Talisman Gate blog is widely read by Iraq experts and commentators in the United States..." The Washington Post, July 19, 2007 "Obama's Saddam Connection? When I first saw the names Barack Obama, Tony Rezko and Nadhmi Auchi a week ago in some random newspaper report, I was sure that some reporter would extrapolate these connections further to include the name "Saddam Hussein". Well, I guess I expected too much from the American press, and it fell to The Times (UK) to spell out the obvious. Back in the opposition days, the name "Nadhmi Auchi" was just another front for Saddam's intelligence service, or so we thought. Auchi (?a Chaldean Christian; there's a Muslim family by that name too) knew Saddam intimately enough in his youth to the point of conspiring together to pull off an assassination attempt on Soviet-leaning Iraqi strongman Col. Abdul-Karim Qasim in 1959. Auchi was considered one of Saddam's guys, who mysteriously left his job in the Ministry of Oil to start a business in Luxembourg with school-pal Nasseer 'Abid (?Shia from Nassiriya). Auchi's brothers stayed behind in Iraq and fixed deals with their brother to bring oil industry spare parts, but one of them got too greedy and went too far?from the regime's perspective?in hoarding kickbacks and was executed over corruption charges in the mid-1980s on Saddam's personal orders. Yet, even after this, Auchi maintained a connection to Saddam, according to what we in the opposition believed at the time. A very reliable source of mine who knows Auchi very well disputes any intelligence or money laundering roles that Auchi may have performed on behalf of Saddam, but then again, had that been true, enough people would have formed a different impression about Auchi and this stigma of him being one of Saddam's 'secret men' would have faded away?but it never did. What is certain is that Auchi never turned against Saddam even after his brother was murdered, and may have stuck to the Ba'athist talking points when talking politics. Auchi has faced all sorts of controversy and legal action in Europe, and at one point had difficulty obtaining a visa to visit the United States. I'm not fully sure, but I think that Auchi eventually did make it to Michigan and was honored at some ceremony there; I remember seeing something in the local Iraqi-American press to that effect. I could be wrong, but some reporters should be checking this out. What if there had been an Obama-Auchi meeting that may have been arranged by Rezko? Has any reporter asked Obama about this to his face? What if either Rezko or Auchi sold Obama on how the Saddam regime sees things, and that's why Obama took a stance against the Iraq war? Was Obama influenced by a Saddam connection?? Are the investigative journalists of the US in HIBERNATION?
Posted by: papeehara
February 2, 2008
http://www.motherjones.com/
The sign of a true Messiah Complex is his ability to fool so many with so little. People are looking for meaning and this is what Mr. Obama is plundering.
Frankly, I think he is one of the scariest men to run for office aside from George Bush. He makes GW look like a middle schooler in the Messiah business.
But why leave out the reasons why we should worry:
------------------------
WHY WAS OBAMA AGAINST THE WAR? The recent report of the Obama Rezko and Nadhmi Auchi connection was mind boggling to me because of one elemental factor: Auchi, an Iraqi billionaire with connections to Saddam Hussein and the Ba'athist regime and his wife both are political donors to Obama's campaign I am even more perplexed today when I came across this entry by Nibras Kazimi, a visiting Scholar at the Hudson Institute in Washington DC. who writes a weekly column on the Middle East for the New York Sun, and a monthly column for the Prospect Magazine (UK) and whose "Talisman Gate blog is widely read by Iraq experts and commentators in the United States..." The Washington Post, July 19, 2007 "Obama's Saddam Connection? When I first saw the names Barack Obama, Tony Rezko and Nadhmi Auchi a week ago in some random newspaper report, I was sure that some reporter would extrapolate these connections further to include the name "Saddam Hussein". Well, I guess I expected too much from the American press, and it fell to The Times (UK) to spell out the obvious. Back in the opposition days, the name "Nadhmi Auchi" was just another front for Saddam's intelligence service, or so we thought. Auchi (?a Chaldean Christian; there's a Muslim family by that name too) knew Saddam intimately enough in his youth to the point of conspiring together to pull off an assassination attempt on Soviet-leaning Iraqi strongman Col. Abdul-Karim Qasim in 1959. Auchi was considered one of Saddam's guys, who mysteriously left his job in the Ministry of Oil to start a business in Luxembourg with school-pal Nasseer 'Abid (?Shia from Nassiriya). Auchi's brothers stayed behind in Iraq and fixed deals with their brother to bring oil industry spare parts, but one of them got too greedy and went too far?from the regime's perspective?in hoarding kickbacks and was executed over corruption charges in the mid-1980s on Saddam's personal orders. Yet, even after this, Auchi maintained a connection to Saddam, according to what we in the opposition believed at the time. A very reliable source of mine who knows Auchi very well disputes any intelligence or money laundering roles that Auchi may have performed on behalf of Saddam, but then again, had that been true, enough people would have formed a different impression about Auchi and this stigma of him being one of Saddam's 'secret men' would have faded away?but it never did. What is certain is that Auchi never turned against Saddam even after his brother was murdered, and may have stuck to the Ba'athist talking points when talking politics. Auchi has faced all sorts of controversy and legal action in Europe, and at one point had difficulty obtaining a visa to visit the United States. I'm not fully sure, but I think that Auchi eventually did make it to Michigan and was honored at some ceremony there; I remember seeing something in the local Iraqi-American press to that effect. I could be wrong, but some reporters should be checking this out. What if there had been an Obama-Auchi meeting that may have been arranged by Rezko? Has any reporter asked Obama about this to his face? What if either Rezko or Auchi sold Obama on how the Saddam regime sees things, and that's why Obama took a stance against the Iraq war? Was Obama influenced by a Saddam connection?? Are the investigative journalists of the US in HIBERNATION?
Posted by: papeehara
February 2, 2008
http://www.motherjones.com/
Oh, come on. Every candidate for president I've ever heard says "this election" is the most important one ever, "a defining moment in history." What's new about that? And I don't hear Obama saying he's God, or even Martin Luther King; I hear him saying he's the candidate for these times.
If anything, Obama consistently says 'we' not 'me'. Seems like a messianic personality wouldn't be able to emphasize the collective.
Also seems to me that so many people are jaded about politics that anything that actually looks good has to be wrong. "What, I actually have a chance to make a good choice this time, rather than vote for the lesser of two evils?! Nah, must be a fairytale."
Submitted by capt (not verified) on Wed Feb. 13, 2008 9:54 AM PST.
I think JS is missing one important point. Obama is inspirational (like it or not) and that was Reagan's one strong point.
People LOVE to be inspired.
I am sick of Obama's "message of hope"...I hope people stop dying in the desert...I hope soldiers stop dying in Iraq...I hope a full blown depression doesn't happen...I hope senior citizens don't have to choose between food and medicine. Does anyone really think this silly message has any guts behind it? If we really want serious solutions, as voters we need to take a long look at Senator Clinton again. These issues are much too serious to take lightly.
I think it is safe to say that many Obama supporters view him as a "savior" of sorts. But the issue here is that Obama is leading people at their feet and not at their heads. Essentially, it's empowerment. It's not only that Obama can bring people together to win an election, but that he can bring people together behind progressive ideals. I have no doubt that HRC is knowledgable and truly believes in the same progressive ideals, but she won't move the country in the same way.
Part of Obama's power is his inspriration, and I can see where people view that as being almost religious, but if we really want a radical shift toward progressive policy, we'll need a leader who can bring together a grassroots coalition. This is the same kind of politics Sen. Paul Wellstone espoused.
Beware the politician with too much charisma. Don't forget that Kennedy was responsible for our first overt actions in Vietnam. This was an illegal undeclared war - as is our current 'conflict'.
If you look past Obama's great speaking skills you will see that he is just another US imperialist. Last summer an issue of 'Foreign Affairs' had an essay by Obama - here is an excerpt:
"We must use this moment both to rebuild our military and to prepare it for the missions of the future. We must retain the capacity to swiftly defeat any conventional threat to our country and our vital interests."
The 'vital interests' phrase is key. The Clinton doctrine and the Bush doctrine both were based on protecting US interests and resources around the globe.
Folks, our current military spending exceeds the rest of the world combined! We maintain 700 military bases in 130 countries around the world.
If anyone has a better word for this than 'imperialism' I'd like to know what it is. We spend nearly a Trillion dollars per year maintaining this overseas empire. We're not welcome there - and the aggression against the US has an obvious basis in our far reaching 'foreign policy'.
It's amazing how difficult this obvious hypocrisy is to see. I was blind to it a long time as well. We preemptively attach others, but we would never accept such a premise against us. We maintain a vast military abroad, yet we would never allow a foreign military presence on our soil.
If you read the original preface to Orwell's 'Animal Farm' (this was unpublished until recently) - you will read how 'self censorship' based on political correctness is the most insidious and difficult form of censorship to see. The inability to grasp or discuss the huge faults in our foreign policy seem to fall into this category. Yet you need go no further than the good old golden rule (or ethic of reciprocity) - 'Apply to ourselves the principle we apply to others'.
There are candidates that grasp this issue and voice this topic candidly - Dennis Kucinich, Mike Gravel, and Ron Paul. Alas - they are not seen as 'viable' candidates.
Please don't fall for the slick politician - too much is at stake. All of the top tier candidates are simply a continuation of the US imperialism we've be immersed in for at least 50 years.
Submitted by Monte Asbury (not verified) on Wed Feb. 13, 2008 11:24 AM PST.
The essence of the Obama campaign is often missed: this is the first post-modern candidate. He is talking about a transformation of the method of politics from top-down, win-at any-price, opponent-as-demon, policy-crafted-from-above, to bottom-up, open, win-win, opponent as intelligent contributor, citizen-involved policy creation. It's an expression of modernist v. post-modern outlooks. It appears in all corners of America. It magnetizes post-moderns and puzzles moderns. And it is the direction of Western culture as it travels through one of the great philosophical transitions of history.
Awesome, Mr. Stein, awesome! I've heard the same thing from him many times, he's already presuming that his (possible) presidency will be as transcending an occurrence as those momentous achievements he equates himself with.
Expect more like this. They have nothing on Obama, so they're trying out tactics - he's not black enough (didn't work), he is too black (didn't work), and now it is the old anti-Martin Luther King slur - he believes he is Jezus. Let me guess - it won't work either. Rove and his crew just don't have anything on him, so they come up with garbage like " Barack Obama has a messiah complex and no one will convince me otherwise.". No one will convince you? So evidence to the contrary wouldn't sway you either, right?
I disagree profoundly with this article. I watched both Clinton and Obama speak last night. Even before I read this blog, I had been struck by Clinton's constant use of "I" -- "I see..., when I am elected..." while Obama, even in the passage you quoted above, refers to "we," "us," and "they" as in they who fought slavery and fought for civil rights. He explicitly calls for greater participation and has been inviting people into the process. He actually acknowledges that he cannot do this by himself... which is why people feel like they are not campaigning for a political candidate but for a piece of a social movement that is theirs to own. Note the number of people who contribute to his campaign with $5-10.
Have you been asleep the last seven years? Standing in the middle of the debris that is the current sorry state of our union, Obama is reminding people why we used to be proud of America, and the long tradition of goodness, courage, and yes, hope, that is our legacy and that is ours to continue.
" I am sick of Obama's "message of hope"... Does anyone really think this silly message has any guts behind it? "
You can stop now, it isn't working. Too bad you have nothing positive to say about Hillary Clinton, isn't it?
By the way, I am not connected to the Obama campaign, I am strictly speaking in my own capacity. But as someone who has been on the internet for over 10 years, I think I can spot a 'message' being reported over and over again.
It is the same talking points repeated over and over again: Obama doesn't have the experience (Obama has been a senator longer than Clinton if you count his Indiana Senate experience); Obama hates women and therefore the pro-Obama vote is a 'mysogynist' vote (let's try to play the 'poor Hillary' vote again, so we can run against her, because we believe it worked after Iowa); he is all message and hope (appealing to the people who don't actually listen to his speeches). I think I have all the talking points there.
Rove and his buddies must be working overtime, trying to go after Obama. The reason is simple. Obama is electrifying the Democrats AND the Republicans to vote for him. Hillary only electrifies the Republicans into voting against her.
Note that none of the claims against Obama has to do with his policies or his voting record. Because they are getting absolutely no traction against him.
I agree that he is being a bit self referential and over the top.
I also try not to like any politician because of his or her oratory skills...but I get really moved by Obama.
I know that Obama is basically the same as Hillary on their viewpoints, but he just has that extra edge. That, and the fact I can't stand the Clinton/Bush machine.
Obama's message of "hope" really inspires. He knows that it will be a hard road to forge and speaks accordingly.
"Me" also has it right when speaking about Obama's detractors. They don't attack his views, they attack the method of his views.
I don't think that attacking hope is the side of an argument that anyone wants to be on.
Lastly, when I voted for Nader in 2000 I wanted change. Eight years later, I want it more than ever. Obama appeals directly to that in me, and I think a lot of others as well.
Submitted by capt (not verified) on Wed Feb. 13, 2008 1:11 PM PST.
No messiah, no politician could ever be so.
All politicians suck and nearly all are egomaniacs.
So the question comes down to: Which sucky egomaniacal person do we want running the country?
******
"The government consists of a gang of men exactly like you and me. They have, taking one with another, no special talent for the business of government; they have only a talent for getting and holding office."
~ H. L. Mencken
i have nothing terribly profound to say about this, but i do think that many people miss the point of Obama's inspirational monologues. In his case, some of his most enthusiastic backers are also the most easily-discouraged...I'm speaking for myself, as an African American here. Despite the fact that this is NOT about race, it is undeniably an emotional rollercoaster ride for us...I appreciate his efforts to keep me engaged & inspired, because more than once, so far, I've thought about giving up hope - America will never elect a black man, etc.
I, for one, NEED his inspiration & encouragement, as he needs my support. It's a symbionic relationship designed to improve life for EVERYONE.
"Cynicism is a sad kind of wisdom," - This is the beauty of his words and what prevents the hateful and nasty people like yourself, Jonathan Stein, from swaying the solidarity of people who wish to join together in a common cause to regain control of a country that is supposed to be for the people and by the people. Not for the corporations and by the clergymen. Get over yourself and grow up.
The sign of a true Messiah Complex is his ability to fool so many with so little. People are looking for meaning and this is what Mr. Obama is plundering.
Frankly, I think he is one of the scariest men to run for office aside from George Bush. He makes GW look like a middle schooler in the Messiah business.
But why leave out the reasons why we should worry:
------------------------
WHY WAS OBAMA AGAINST THE WAR? The recent report of the Obama Rezko and Nadhmi Auchi connection was mind boggling to me because of one elemental factor: Auchi, an Iraqi billionaire with connections to Saddam Hussein and the Ba'athist regime and his wife both are political donors to Obama's campaign I am even more perplexed today when I came across this entry by Nibras Kazimi, a visiting Scholar at the Hudson Institute in Washington DC. who writes a weekly column on the Middle East for the New York Sun, and a monthly column for the Prospect Magazine (UK) and whose "Talisman Gate blog is widely read by Iraq experts and commentators in the United States..." The Washington Post, July 19, 2007 "Obama's Saddam Connection? When I first saw the names Barack Obama, Tony Rezko and Nadhmi Auchi a week ago in some random newspaper report, I was sure that some reporter would extrapolate these connections further to include the name "Saddam Hussein". Well, I guess I expected too much from the American press, and it fell to The Times (UK) to spell out the obvious. Back in the opposition days, the name "Nadhmi Auchi" was just another front for Saddam's intelligence service, or so we thought. Auchi ( a Chaldean Christian; there's a Muslim family by that name too) knew Saddam intimately enough in his youth to the point of conspiring together to pull off an assassination attempt on Soviet-leaning Iraqi strongman Col. Abdul-Karim Qasim in 1959. Auchi was considered one of Saddam's guys, who mysteriously left his job in the Ministry of Oil to start a business in Luxembourg with school-pal Nasseer 'Abid ( Shia from Nassiriya). Auchi's brothers stayed behind in Iraq and fixed deals with their brother to bring oil industry spare parts, but one of them got too greedy and went too farfrom the regime's perspectivein hoarding kickbacks and was executed over corruption charges in the mid-1980s on Saddam's personal orders. Yet, even after this, Auchi maintained a connection to Saddam, according to what we in the opposition believed at the time. A very reliable source of mine who knows Auchi very well disputes any intelligence or money laundering roles that Auchi may have performed on behalf of Saddam, but then again, had that been true, enough people would have formed a different impression about Auchi and this stigma of him being one of Saddam's 'secret men' would have faded awaybut it never did. What is certain is that Auchi never turned against Saddam even after his brother was murdered, and may have stuck to the Ba'athist talking points when talking politics. Auchi has faced all sorts of controversy and legal action in Europe, and at one point had difficulty obtaining a visa to visit the United States. I'm not fully sure, but I think that Auchi eventually did make it to Michigan and was honored at some ceremony there; I remember seeing something in the local Iraqi-American press to that effect. I could be wrong, but some reporters should be checking this out. What if there had been an Obama-Auchi meeting that may have been arranged by Rezko? Has any reporter asked Obama about this to his face? What if either Rezko or Auchi sold Obama on how the Saddam regime sees things, and that's why Obama took a stance against the Iraq war? Was Obama influenced by a Saddam connection?? Are the investigative journalists of the US in HIBERNATION?
Posted by: papeehara
February 2, 2008
http://www.motherjones.com/
If Mr. Stein had bothered to actually follow Obama's campaign, he would know that Obama is not saying that HE is what we need, he's saying WE are what we need.
Obama IS actually saying that we need to march and organize.
Obama is SPECIFICALLY saying, much as Howard Dean did, that he is NOT going to solve all our problems, but that only WE THE PEOPLE can make our dreams happen.
How incredibly sad that Mr. Stein goes so far as to point out that his writing will reinforce a certain meme, even as he creates that meme with his ill informed nincompoopery.
-Beauchard
**I think those cynics who howl the most loudly about Obama (and those of us who appreciate him), are the ones who most WANT HIM TO BE REAL. They desperately want something to believe in, but can hang on only to their "sorry wisdom of cynicism." They haven't the courage to fight for something better.
Submitted by Salar Golestanian (not verified) on Wed Feb. 13, 2008 5:22 PM PST.
I am a British Iranian living in UK for most of my adult life. I am married to my lovely white English wife. I have a son called Cameron and daughter Abigail.
I want to really congratulate all of you in US, since for the first time you have allowed a Woman, Black African Origin regular guy, An Old man to be in the race for the top job. How refreshing is that? It is fantastic to see the leader of the FREE world to take the lead and show the rest of the world what democracy means. To show the rest of the world how the US system can allowed a somewhat ordinary man with humble background (Obama) to reach where he has come so far and may be win.
I have never ever been too much in politics as I never felt my vote can make any difference what so ever. It really does not matter much over here if it is Labour or conservative in power. They are all practically the same do the same since while they are in power. I never felt that there is much difference between them. In fact last time I voted for a joker as I thought he was the only one that could have made a difference.
There is something absolutely certain over here in Europe. You will never ever, see a none white Caucasus man/woman ever reaching the top. Over here if you have not come from Eton and did get your degree in Oxford or Cambridge then you will never be in charge - Just forget it. You may make it as an MP or assistant something just to be politically correct. I guess I don't expect a none Italian to head Italy since the culture is very Italian. There are not many foreigners living there. However, somehow I expect differently in UK or say in France due to their colonial background. They went out and ruled many continents for centuries and allowed people to come here and live her for generations. Therefore, it is fair to expect the right to reach the top for all these none white Caucasus people should be there. yet I just don't see it here or rest of the Europe. Over here It is as impossible to be a black prime minister as it is to be a future black King of England
I tell you that the rest of the world is watching you with great interest and admiration if I may say so, because, it is different this time. You are indeed making history. Your are making a statement this time around that is much more profound than in your recent history. Recently, I have been watching, almost every YouTube debate in the subject. I am so impressed with what is happening that I almost feel I am voting with writing this post over here and this weekend I will blog in my usual IT blog space.
Naturally from what I see I want Obama to win due to his extraordinary sincerity and his natural ability to see what is the right thing to do. This is a great talent any man can have. The leader of a country must have that ability and clearly Obama passes that with maximum mark. Probably his other biggest asset is his ability to move people, to make them stand up and move in the right direction.
When Bush and Blair together went for Sadam to Iraq, I felt they were great. I felt they had the balls to go to Iraq in a bold move. But now I am a little wiser and I know that my hate for Sadam was so much that it clouded my better judgment. Perhaps it did the same for Bush and Blair.
Guess what
Obama was above all that stuff.
Salar
"I am sick of Obama's 'message of hope'...I hope people stop dying in the desert...I hope soldiers stop dying in Iraq...I hope a full blown depression doesn't happen...I hope senior citizens don't have to choose between food and medicine. Does anyone really think this silly message has any guts behind it? If we really want serious solutions, as voters we need to take a long look at Senator Clinton again. These issues are much too serious to take lightly.
Posted by: silverlucie on 02/13/08 at 10:27 AM"
You hope soldiers stop dying in Iraq and yet you support the canidate who voted for the war, who voted for Kyl-Lieberman, who refuses to repudiate torture, and even refused to sign a pledge indicating her allegiance to the Constitution?
I think you should give your candidate a few more looks. Without the rose-colored glasses.
Mr. Stein, You must be so proud to have officially joined the Clinton spin machine. Why even bother to write your own pieces? Why don't you just let Sid Blumenthal pen them for you? Or Jake Tapper? I loved the part where he compared Obama followers to members of the Charles Manson cult. See www.ajc.com/opinion/content/ printedition/2008/02/13/obamaed0213.html
Geez, Obama.... It's just enough! The guy is a good candidate but, beyond the repetitive inspirational rhetoric, lies a completely standard platform. Prove me otherwise! Tell me what he's going to do to "turn Washington on its feet." What will you say after 'yes we can' becomes just another past hit?
That's the big question... not for you, supporters of Obama, but for Obama himself. Good pop products of top quality know well about this. If you don't provide substance, no one will remember you in a little while. And so far, all he relies on is on his rhetoric. As a good Spanish expression says: "Words belong to the air, and there they stay"
Does Obama's hope rhetoric wear a little thin after a while? Yeah, it does. Are his speeches lacking in substance? Sometimes, but he has his campaign platform outlined for those who take the time to look for it.
If Obama had decided to ditch the hope appeal, would he have drawn as many new voters? Would there be throngs of people clamoring to vote in the primaries? Nope. There wouldn't be. In fact, I bet that if Obama wasn't running this year that there wouldn't be as many Clinton supporters either. Like it or not, Obama has people fired up about politics...and that cannot be a bad thing in my opinion. So if his speeches seem a little wishy washy after a while...well, maybe his speeches are meant to draw in new supporters, and not appease jaded hip columnists who overananalyze what are at heart meaningless poli-advertising anyway. Are Clinton's uber-market researched safe speeches really soooo chock full of substance? I would say they are not.
So if Obama is elected president will there be a bit of a letdown when people realize that he won't make manna fall from heaven? Perhaps a little, but I bet we will have an entire new generation who realizes that politics matter.
Submitted by capt (not verified) on Fri Feb. 15, 2008 8:19 AM PST.
"History is moving, and it will tend toward hope, or tend toward tragedy."
~ George W. Bush (1946 - )
Sounds like even some Bushies will go to Obama.
"I am just a poor boy
though my story's seldom told
I have squandered my resistance
for a pocket full of mumbles
Such are promises
All lies and jest
Still a man hears what he wants to hear
and disregards the rest...
After changes upon changes
we are more or less the same..."
Paul Simon "The Boxer"
Inspiration...hope...change. Like all words, easy to recite. But real change requires commitment, strength, courage, sacrifice, resilience--not just for a vote or two, not just for a campaign, but for years--for lifetimes.
Self-interest is largely what makes the world go round. Politics is a well-oiled machine kept humming by self-interest. Change, if it happens at all, comes from the trenches. And it is tireless, endless work to try to keep the progress you have managed to make--those greedy waves NEVER stop lapping away at your castle of sand.
If Obama truly thinks he can inspire in the masses the kind of commitment that true change requires then he is, without a doubt, an egomaniac.
For those who believe Obama will bring real change, you will be disappointed and disheartened. Change is a struggle that never ends, not a feel-good rally.
If you are TRULY inspired, then that power comes from inside yourself and not from some politician, however eloquent he might be. It is YOUR blood, sweat and tears that make YOU the hero, not the ones with the lofty words.
"Cynicism is a sad kind of wisdom." Hmm. It's kind of interesting that everyone is focusing on the "sad" part, and not on the concession that cynicism is, in fact, wisdom.
As for Obama, well what do we have? A charismatic leader who promises that through collective action we can achieve glorious results. Yes we can. Okay. No historical examples to suggest that might go badly, right?
Submitted by capt (not verified) on Sat Feb. 16, 2008 5:53 AM PST.
"Leadership is based on inspiration, not domination; on cooperation, not intimidation."
~ William Arthur Wood
Submitted by Derek Gilbert (not verified) on Sat Feb. 16, 2008 7:41 AM PST.
Monte Asbury wrote: "[Obama] is talking about a transformation of the method of politics from top-down, win-at any-price, opponent-as-demon, policy-crafted-from-above, to bottom-up, open, win-win, opponent as intelligent contributor, citizen-involved policy creation."
Except that he's publicly announced his intent to continue using the unconstitutional presidential signing statement, which President Bush has used several hundred times during his presidency to modify and ignore legislation passed by Congress. That sounds pretty top-down to me.
Obama completely lost me when MoveOn began supporting them. Ugh. Oddly enough, this whole thing is starting to remind me of the Bush campaign. What's next? Halo pictures? http://www.theocracywatch.org/bush2.htm
Oratory is necessary to inspire. "I have a dream" is far more powerful than "I have a position paper."
I don't want to come off as condescending, but that's an awfully silly thing to say. King did have a position paper. It was called "Going Through Hell". And thankfully, he had the passion and courage to stand in the capital of the United States and to demand "change". He was the real deal. He even talked specifics. Every listener to that speech knows what he's talking about, knows what it takes to make that change. Because he had been making that change and inspiring others to do so for years before that day. You knew that what was being done was scary, tragic, and demanding, but that that change would not happen without our back breaking efforts. King didn't just "inspire", he quelled our fears and set fire to millions who had once deemed their dreams dead. He (along with many many other civil rights leaders, writers and musicians) passed law without ever being elected.
Nobody voted for Martin Luther King Jr. They didn't have to.
With that out of the way, I completely agree with this article. I think it was the NH speech that had me feeling this way about Obama. It seems cheap for him to cite past movements. Only because... I don't know what he stands for. If it's corrupt government he's fighting against, which I do think is a worthy cause, I wish I could participate in the fight with him before having to vote for him for president first. It's just really strange and off putting.
A great deal of people are relying on him and I just hope we're all making the right decision. His speeches are lovely, but hopefully they're inspiring people to do more than just vote for him.
I really don't care for Obama, but I have to admit, the man is brilliant. As much as he doesn't want to admit that he's a politician he's an incredibly capable one. He's gotten this far without talking much about policy, misquoting opponents, and yes, playing the race card (I mean... c'mon. How many times do we have to hear that he's related to Cheney, a white guy, before it gets old?). Before anyone thinks I'm a crazed Clinton supporter, I will say that I think he'd be a vast improvement on what he have now despite my distaste for him personally (I can't stand Clinton's personality either). We'll see what happens...
Strictly referring to the course of history Obama paints, I think his point is less about being a mesiah and more about the United States culturally moving forward. A black president is an enormous step forward in equal rights for this country.
American Revolutionaries -> Manifest Destiny -> Slaves/Abolitionists -> Suffragettes -> the Labor Movement -> the Greatest Generation -> the Civil Rights Movement -> Himself (aka black child of an interracial couple)
Barack Hussein Obama is just an ambitious, narcisstic politician with a goal of being President of the United States. Listen to his words and watch his body language when he speaks about his nomination. In 2006, Obama and a few other advisors devised a very good plan of fooling the masses by preaching hope and change because that is what we want to hear. Americans want a good president. But we need to think with our heads and think like a corporation where in the hiring process the employee's past performance is scrutinized because it will determine future value to the company. Now shake off the wishful thinking and look into Obama's past performance. Not too good.
Submitted by capt (not verified) on Sat Feb. 16, 2008 4:43 PM PST.
"Barack Hussein Obama is just an ambitious, narcisstic politician with a goal of being President of the United States."
Unlike the other politicians running for president?
All politicians suck.
One of them is going to be president.
Obama is a good choice, better than McCain and likely better than HRC.
The last thing we need is another cocky president who promises more than he can deliver. Like Bush, Obama has a completely unrealistic sense of his own capabilities and limitations. We need a pragmatic, hard-working realist. Vote for Hillary Clinton. Her speeches may not knock you off your feet, but she knows what needs to be done and she won't stop until its done.
As a response to Ian:
Yes, change is an ongoing process... but you are putting rhteroical shackles on someone is offering a message that resounds. That is B.S.
Put simply: by denying the possibility that someone actually means well, you are denying the possibility of politics and government in the US of ever making the steps necessary to change.
You are essentially adopting the "one person can't change the world, so why bother," hipster line. No matter how eloquently you spout apathy, it is apathy.
It is junk to call someone a cult of personality when they have not implemented any standard cult or brainwashing techniques. Everyone does the word "cult" injustice and denies its awful historical legacy by pawning it off on a politician with lofty rhetoric that inspires people to try and alter the political system that is KILLING the third world and SQUEEZING US DRY.
It isn't about Obama; it is about the message. This writer and all of the others who get dyspeptic from hope hate the message that somehow things can improve or that the system can be prepared. Obama isn't saying all at once... he is declaring the possibility that by putting people (most notably him) in office that speak and act on these grounds, that this country and the whole world can move in a more positive direction without the divisions and rancor that have POLARIZED us into increasing extremist camps.
Get it??
the most revealing incidents of barack's messiah complex have been this recent string of staged fainting spells by young woman at his rallies.
he dramtically stops his speech to clear the way and offer help to the nearby fainter (what, nobody in the back is fainting?) and then offers his very own bottle of water to heal the gal while the crowd goes wild. then, it's on to the next stop to repeat this whole spectacle of the holy obama healing the sick.... blech !! is this a presidential campaign or a tent revival meeting ? this is the phoniest bit i've ever seen and nobody seems to be questioning it for fear of being called a racist or lacking in "hope" or some such garbage.
In response to Eric:
Words are cheap, and the world is full of well-intentioned people, including Obama and many of his supporters.
Someone who holds a realistic attitude is NOT being apathetic. Those who are truly inspired understand the personal cost that commitment to meaningful and lasting change incurs. No leader, regardless of his eloquence, can ever give that to someone else--it comes from deep inside a person, from their dreams, their suffering, their wisdom, their altruism. Apathy is what those with unrealistic expectations will end up feeling when their "dreams" are not achieved with the minimal effort that they are willing to exert. Progress is made by those who stick around to do the hard, dirty work after all of the "dreamers" have gone home. It doesn't feel much like a dream when you're covered with sweat and mud, holding your ground in the trenches, but you stay the course--not because you hear the distant echoes of some pretty speech, but because you are inspired from deep within yourself to make the world a better place. Those who don't understand this will never contribute much to any cause.
Politics as a whole does not lend itself well to change. Like many things in life, you can mess things up a whole lot easier and faster than you can fix them and make them better. We need all the (relatively) good and honest people in office that we can get, who will do what they can to stop the relentless assault of greed and corruption, and hopefully have some time and energy left over to build a little better system. The one elected to the "top" cannot simply drag that huge political beast behind him wherever he wishes it to go--no one is that strong and powerful and talented.
Obama apparently believes that he can continue to inspire throngs of people even after he is elected, but most of you will just get on with your lives and wait for HIM to pull the rabbit out of the hat, leaving the relative handful of truly inspired to do what they can "on their own". That's the way it's always been. That's not the voice of apathy, it's the voice of experience.
Movements need leaders, to be sure--to offer ideas, to dispel fear, to lend a little support and let you know that you are not alone. But an election is not a movement--it is an eclectic assemblage of problems and ideas. It is not a place to go to get inspired.
Submitted by capt (not verified) on Sun Feb. 17, 2008 1:39 PM PST.
"Someone who holds a realistic attitude"
What's realistic to one may not be realistic to others.
Just because you think you are being realistic doesn't mean you have a monopoly on perspective. Nor are you being realistic because you think so, no matter how concinved.
Consider:
"Never hire or promote in your own image. It is foolish to replicate your strength and idiotic to replicate your weakness. It is essential to employ, trust, and reward those whose perspective, ability, and judgment are radically different from yours. It is also rare, for it requires uncommon humility, tolerance, and wisdom."
~ Dee W. Hock, Fast Company
You have to respect yourself before you can truly respect another.
Just a thought.
Inspiration as a fault? Interesting but wrong.
