Oh my I've been trying to point that out to friends that are his True Believers but to no avail. It's amazing they send those clips and say wasn't that a great speech and I say yes but whats he really have to say about this subject and could he go a little deeper into this matter. They look at me like I'm nut's and they are the one's with great educations. Thanks Ian for the link and no I'm not passing along to them, they already have that look like everything will be OK. I would like to be wrong.
jo6pac

Then came the actually Obama event. The best I can liken it to is a cross between a rock concert and a religious revival.

Funny, I was thinking the videos and news film I have seen of his rallys reminded me of Christian Rock dvd commercials.

One thing that I was struck by immediately reading Wendel's piece is that he was coddled by the Clinton campaign. They took care of him because he was from the press, they knew he was coming, they escorted him in. No such luck with Obama, his campaign didn't take care of the press at all. On the other hand, I have read lots of stuff lately about how good Obama's ground operation is, that people from his campaign are out and visible where Clinton's are not. That Obama has many offices running in all the states ahead of a primary, while Clinton has none, one or two.

I'm not sure what it means, but the Krugman piece did give me pause, and that latter half of Wendel's piece hit on it too. The press will turn on Obama once he's the nominee and the campaign is underway. Hopefully the ground operation is an early strategy and he will engage the press better if he wins the nomination. And for the "disclosure" thing, I was rooting for Edwards, but I'm now rooting for Obama.

is my choice.
Many years ago I was just a kid learning politics.
I heard of JFK being assassinated.
JFK was just like Obama.
A new kid. An untried kid. JFK won on the popularity vote.
I think we should give Obama the benefit of the doubt.
JFK did great things.
Maybe Obama could do the same?
Hillary, same old, same old.
We need new choices.
We need new views.
We need to get rid of Bush.

_{repressive governments mix administrative clumsiness & inefficiency with authoritarian tendencies.}

I've often thought Obama as having more talk than walk. But there can be no mistaking the measure of the walk that has taken him to this point in the nomination process. The guy has run a great campaign.

If the guy runs the executive branch with as much judgment as he has run his campaign, he will have exceeded my early expectations by a wide margin. The success of his campaign demonstrates that he can focus on practical objectives and the means by which they can be gained - even when those objectives seem unattainable to the vast majority. It was supposed to be a cakewalk for HRC, remember?

I don't know what an Obama administration is going to reveal. I suspect it will be full of surprises.

That's where he got me. And that's a policy question.
No lobbyist money. That's where he got me.
All for invading Afghanistan, against Iraq. That's where he got me.
His ability to work with both sides of the aisle. That's where he got me.

The Cult of Personality accusation rings hollow on folks like me and smell of desperation.

Crossposted from jesse's comment section
-------------
Okay...no, really!..this is enough.

Look, comparing Obama to a person who uses demagogic tactics (Bush), or a person who speaks using special terminology (Erhard) really is an insult. You shouldn't be expected to be recieved with honor by insulting people others support.

Obama doesn't do lies, like Bush. Obama also doesn't use unclear or fuzzy language like Erhard. Furthermore, this is a pep rally! What the hell are you doing expecting lots of wonk at a pep rally?

A pep rally is all about being excited! It's not as I ever had been excited at any pep rallies I've been in when I was at school. But I've never gone out and whined about how all these people are excited about the football team.

Lastly, there is not a little of the whiff of derision of all the people who voted for Obama, even people who thought through all the reasons why they'd vote for him, and read his policy position, and watched some of his actual policy speeches--like his excellent speech on Cuba policy, or the speech about his policy aims for disabled people (which is important to me, and something Clinton doesn't talk about).

I very much resent having the patina of cult-member grounded into my awareness, when Obama was my second choice. Moreover, remember this, Obama started with pretty damn low poll numbers well into South Carolina. He was an awful lot of people's second choice. For many, many people, they are voting for him on the basis of some kind of information, not about how hyped up they are.
---------------

And now for here...I don't know about anyone else, but I am reminded of the whole reaction toward Howard Dean's scream, and how much the media played into that revulsion. PhoenixRising on that thread kept talking about the dangers of overemotionalism or whatever. I view this as a potential risk, but I percieve Obama's organization as having been one of the best run presidential campaigns ever. He is apparently about to be successful at a strategy that Gary Hart pioneered, and the first one, at that. He, and his organization, has made remarkably few mistakes, *especially* since right before South Carolina, and he is doing it against two very experienced and tough politicians with a lot of good things to be said about them. I bet the Sally Quinns of the world *will* try this line about how "crazy" his supporters are, however, that shit works when you're just not that professional with organizational soft spots and surrogates who are winging things. I don't see it working here.

As far as the blogosphere goes...I'm just going to wait until the political season is over and you guys retain your sanity and sense of proportion. I percieve you guys as whining about things that doesn't particularly *matter*. In the end, convince me that it *matters*. Does it? If not, then make more cogent attacks on the canidates themselves! I don't mind being challenged on my view of the canidates. I sure as hell mind the whiff of elitist condescension waffing upon us excitable masses.

hm, the first half of that piece is just the blogger whining that he wasn't treated like a respectable national blogger should be treated. then a bunch of vague stuff about est and funny looks in kids eyes? i don't i know... i guess i have not witnessed the whole "cult" thing in person (or anywhere else, really), so i can't really speak to it, but everytime i hear people complain about it, the impression i get is that its more about the fact that that person is above that sort of thing. i am not buying it as anything more than just a little extra, maybe somewhat misguided, passion, but nothing out of the ordinary for politics.

anyway, i am between barack and a hard place. hillary flubbed iraq 2 so bad i cannot imagine voting for her, but barack the empty suit is starting to wear on me really bad.

end the blurring--vote steve novick for u.s. senate in oregon

Come on have you checked this person's blog site. It has AC-130s on it (great for killing brown people in far off places from up in the sky and then feeling like a hero) a B-25 and a helicopter. Evidently a man comfortable with the butchery Hilary's vote has brought on Iraqis and on the US military personnel involved in this. I don't have the vote in the US, it is not my campaign and I would have gone for Edwards anyhow, who at least had the decency to apologize for that vote but how can she talk of sound foreign and economic policy when she is involved in wasting a trillion dollars and a few hundreds of thousands of lives. People Iraq matters. And all of us outside the US care to get someone who represents a clean break from the mess the US has created around the world. Unfortunately you affect us. Fortunately deep down we have a soft spot for you.

Then excuse me if I am not troubled that he was not properly treated by the press people in Obama's campaign. And finally you have to ask yourselves why most academics, eminently informed people, that I know in the US go for Obama and not for her. I guess they are influenced by his empty rhetoric as well and cult of personality.

to a cult of no personality.

I did inhale.

One thing that is obvious is that there is passion in politics this time around. I for one think that is good.

The meme regarding Obama and the "empty" but engaging speeches has me a bit baffled. The guy has leadership skills. I always thought that was in fact desired in one's leaders. The primary requirement for a politica leader is to inspire and sew together a coalition of consensus, if possible amongst the diverse interests that make up a Democracy. Charisma, the ability to listen and respond in a manner that forges accord.

If a candidate was to deliver dense speeches filled with the details of a master policy wonk, it would bore, alienate and rile antipathy among many of the diverse groups that make up the electorate.

Sure, I would love to know exactly what 4 years of Obama would entail.
The reality is that no matter what, opposing forces and the fluid march of time requires a leader that makes the best of what hand is dealt. The power to engage, the ability to enunciate and harness the desire of a Nation to move away from the disaster that has been the Bush regime has value.

Yes, there are things I dislike about Obama. Hell, there are things I dislike about myself, about my Country and about automated telephone menus. I am an adult and I don't expect to have leaders that are and do everything I want. I actually want leaders that at least aim for that big mushy area in the middle. Leaders that are smart enough to listen to smart people, leaders that are aware enough to detect and define what the pulse of the Nation is.

A campaign full of progressive policies would destroy any candidate's chances of a victory in a general election. Surely you all get that?
Elections are not won by merely energizing your base. Swing voters and independents choose the President, as we all know.

So my question is, why do progressives always try to hamstring Democratic candidates? No matter where they are in the political spectrum, they will be bringing with them a whole cadre of Democrats into Government with them. Last I checked, the option of getting some progressives into positions of power was more likely by electing a Democrat.....

So maybe Barak isn't progressive enough for some of you, fine. Vote for hillary. She really, really needs your support.Hillary is barely keeping up to a charismatic unknown.
Hillary Clinton, wife of former president Clinton. With a vast, vast network of donors and powerbrokers, she is having a tough time keeping up with a black man who is getting much of his money from smaller donors.

Ok. Maybe Hillary is a hair's breadth more progressive, (depends on what your definition of is, is) maybe.

Who can win against a pro war candidate?

Who can win against a candidate who has made a habit of co-sponsoring legislation with the opposition?

Who can carry the South?

My money is on Obama. If I thought otherwise I would obviously support whatever Democrat could win. It is that important.

February 11, 2008, 6:38 pm
A Fight About What?

By Ron Klain

The close and impassioned battle for the Democratic nomination is about many things — an insider versus an outsider, the boomer generation versus the millennial generation, a choice between two different “firsts” — but oddly enough, there is one thing that it is NOT about: policy.

snip snip

from comments:

I’m SICK of the hyperventilating commentariat at the Times whipping up a nonexistent conflict. Krugman, in particular, has gone off the rails in his recent philippic calling Obama supporters a bunch of nasty cultists. Frank Rich isn’t far behind.

In truth, surveys consistently show that both Obama and Clinton supporters would be happy to vote for the other candidate in the general election (this number is, interestingly, lower for Clinton’s supporters than Obama’s, giving Krugman’s anecdote-based analysis the lie).

It’s worth noting that online discussion boards should be read for amusement, and are NOT a barometer of the actual tenor of discussion in the community of Democratic voters.

— Posted by Eric

that the very same people who rightly cried foul when being accused of Bush Derangement Syndrome are the first to throw out the slanderous epithet "cult".

...and I hope it dies down soon. It is pointless, mean spirited, and absurdly simplistic.

First, to accuse Obama of not having solid policy positions indicates that you have not done any research whatsoever. You may *disagree* with his policy positions, but he has many of them, and if you cannot be bothered to read the stuff at his website, he has given several in-depth policy discussions, including an excellent back in forth with the SF Chronicles editorial board, which can be found on their website in mp3 format for easier digestion.

Second, to accuse his followers of having a cult mindset is little more than a precious conceit and belies an desire to demonize people you see as opponents rather than to do the hard intellectual work of forming a coherent narrative in favor of your own cause.

Personally, I was an Edwards supporter before I decided that Obama's optimistic vision was more necessary in what will become the post-Bush Reconstruction than either Edwards' populism or Clinton's bureaucratic artistry. And it *is* artistry. She would be a fantastically capable President seen purely from the vantage of an ability to impose order on the immense federal government.

My support for Obama is rooted in my desire for a new, less destructive political narrative, and my belief that he will prove to be an adept bureaucrat. I actually *hope* for more than that, but those are my reasons for supporting the man. Disagree? Fine. In what way does his ability to craft a successful speech make him an inferior candidate? And in what way does enjoying those speeches make his supporters into lemmings?

Final point, no one who justifies their unwillingness to "take crap" by citing their status as a "national blogger" should be given a podium from which to proclaim anything.

I think anybody who doesn't understand what Obama is all about should hasten to read this post, particularly THE COMMENTS.

Here is a YouTube video essay from Lawrence Lessig on Barack Obama. I don't think Lessig sounds like a dreamy eyed groupie, do you?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EdDzvmY1XPo

To me, Lessig's analysis sounded quite rational, and spot on target.

For those who accuse Barack Obama of using rhetoric like a motivational huckster, I challenge you to show me evidence that Obama is insincere before I conclude that his rhetoric is merely cynical manipulation. Otherwise, it's like telling a poet that it's unfair to use so many fancy descriptions. Keep it brief, Shakespeare -- fine, your lover's like a summer's day. Leave it at that, dude!

In the case of obvious hucksters like Mike Huckabee, the evidence is everywhere in his history that he is an all-star bullshitter, a serious hypocrite. To me, the real cult figure is Huckabee, who isn't even running for president at this point (he's running for high-priest of Jesusland). How is Obama like that?

BTW, thanks to Ian for bringing up this "cult" attack issue. This may be one of the many slanders that the thugs will use after the nomination. So, let's have a good look at it ourselves before it gets thrown in our faces by our Republican friends this fall.

"Adapt or perish." Murphy's Law? Nope, Darwin's Guarantee.

In my early twenties I got caught up in EST for a year or two, 1975-76. Then I realized how utterly empty the whole spiel was.

Full embarassing confession here. I attended arena events led by Erhard in SF and LA, including the empty Hunger Project, worked the phones once at the Berkeley office, participated in the original training and two follow-on seminars, and then realized how EST always required one to keep coming back for the jargon and the belief. EST offered nothing, and its mindset melted away once you were out of touch with EST and its followers, (and a lot of my friends were followers). I broke away from it completely and returned to the embodied and lasting exercises of meditation I knew before EST.

I don't see Obama as nearly as dangerous as EST. Some Obama followers, maybe many, may be projecting unreasonable hopes on him -- they will get let down, as many of us often do, when the going gets rough, or our "leader" shows his or her failings or imperfect effectiveness. I was glad to know Obama has been trying to quit smoking.

Werner Erhard carried a smirk with him at all times. I remember Werner telling a huge crowd in the LA Sports Arena that some day he was going to hold a $1000 seminar for 1000 people in one day, and make a million dollars. No one turned to their companions and said WTF, and I soon left EST for good. Werner could be enchanting, but he was mean-spirited and forever self-centered. This came out in a 60 Minutes expose where his own children claimed years of abuse.

I didn't attend the Seattle Obama rally, despite a free ticket to sit with the SEIU, so I can't do a live comparison. But Obama's no Erhard. Not even close.

Main Entry: pro•pa•gan•da
1: a congregation of the Roman curia having jurisdiction over missionary territories and related institutions
2: the spreading of ideas, information, or rumor for the purpose of helping or injuring an institution, a cause, or a person
3: ideas, facts, or allegations spread deliberately to further one's cause or to damage an opposing cause; also : a public action having such an effect

I find it insulting to be alleged a cultist for my support for a particular candidate. Do think this is reasonable to say damaging things like this? Shouldn’t we all keep our facts straight and try our damnedest to remain objective? I began by reading each relevant past article to find the common threads. They were:

Obama’s supporters are typically unable to respond to inquiries about his specific positions.
Obama’s gatherings are reminiscent of a religious rally.
Obama is vague in his speeches.

I think that most of his supporters are unable to specifically list off his positions because for the most part, on television, he has never been clear on them. And they don’t bother to learn them. However if you go to his site you can find a long list of issues with little bits of information here and there. Some are less rounded out and others have several PDFs attached. If you want to become more familiar with Mr. Obama I suggest you start there. Perhaps even by reading public voting records. These are a good way of judging a politician. Basing it on “feelings” is not a good objective measurement. It never has been.

Do you not like Mr. Obama, his positions, or his supporters? Which is it because it seems unclear to me at this point. I preferred Mr. Edwards if not exclusively because he wanted to break up the corporate structure that is damaging our country and world. However as he is no longer eligible we must set our sights on the remaining candidates. This is the unfortunate reality that we must grapple with.

I chose to begin my response with the definition of Propaganda because I have been reading your site for about six months now and I have noticed an increasing number of articles that come off as a blatant attempt to sway my vote and to be quite honest this is very insulting, rude, and patronizing. I don’t want to call myself anything. Liberal, Conservative, Progressive everyone just seems all too eager these days to rally under their flag and point the blame at whomever isn’t wearing their color. I just want everyone to have an honest opinion, their own opinion about what the hell is going on. Certainly I want everyone to have reasonable, rational things to say about people they don’t particularly like. I would especially love to see people not basing their entire opinion on a particular candidate solely on a feeling. A feeling someone else had under particularly stressing circumstances.

barackobama.com/issues

It reminds me of Reagan. The idea being to deliver a message of ringing hope to people who know they have every reason to dread the future.

Bad augurs notwithstanding,if Obama's policies are progressive I expect to be able to live with it. I guess I'm expecting a mixed report card if he becomes the next POTUS.

Rich!!

Election Slogans

I like Grover Cleveland's catchy slogan from 1884 "Blaine, Blaine, James G Blaine. The continental liar from the state of Maine". There's no reference to an JFK slogan. I wonder what it was. George Bush's "Compassionate Conservatism" seems bizarre in retrospect.

Wow, this got 60 responses. Very good.

Once he reaches the White House and needs to get down to the dirty business of governing, he will not know what hit him.

Why not? Where is your evidence? Upon what facts is this claim based? This is basically prejudicial. Why would one U.S. Senator be totally unable to function as the executive but another U.S. Senator would be massively comfortable and suitable?

Evidence?

Joseph C. Wilson:

emph mine -ww

[...]
Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton is one of the few who fully understood the stakes in that battle. Time and again, she reached out to my wife - outed CIA officer Valerie Plame Wilson - and me to remind us that as painful as the attacks were, we simply could not allow ourselves to be driven from the public square by bullying. To do so would validate the radical right’s thesis that the way to win debates is to demonize opponents, taking full advantage of the natural desire to avoid confrontation, even if it means yielding on substantive issues. Hillary knew this from experience, having spent the better part of the past 20 years fighting the Republican attack machine. She is a fighter.

But will Mr. Obama fight? His brief time on the national scene gives little comfort. Consider a February 2006 exchange of letters with Mr. McCain on the subject of ethics reform. The wrathful Mr. McCain accused Mr. Obama of being “disingenuous,” to which Mr. Obama meekly replied, “The fact that you have now questioned my sincerity and my desire to put aside politics for the public interest is regrettable but does not in any way diminish my deep respect for you.” Then McCain said, “Obama wouldn’t know the difference between an RPG and a bong.”

Mr. McCain was insultingly dismissive but successful in intimidating his inexperienced colleague. Thus, in his one face-to-face encounter with Mr. McCain, Mr. Obama failed to stand his ground.

What gives us confidence Mr. Obama will be stronger the next time he faces Mr. McCain, a seasoned political fighter with extensive national security credentials? Even more important, what special disadvantages does Mr. Obama carry into this contest on questions of national security?

How will Mr. Obama answer Mr. McCain about his careless remark about unilaterally bombing Pakistan - perhaps blowing up an already difficult relationship with a nuclear state threatened by Islamic extremists? How will Mr. Obama respond to charges made by the Kenyan government that his campaigning activities in Kenya in support of his distant cousin running for president there made him “a stooge” and constituted interference in the politics of an important and besieged ally in the war on terror?

How will he answer charges that his desire for unstructured personal summits without preconditions with a host of America’s adversaries, from Mahmoud Ahmadinejad to Kim Jong Il, would be little more than premature capitulation?

Senator Obama claims superior judgment on the war in Iraq based on one speech given as a state legislator representing the most liberal district in Illinois at an anti-war rally in Chicago, and in so doing impugns the integrity of those who were part of the debate on the national scene. In mischaracterizing the debate on the Authorization for the Use of Military Force as a declaration of war, he implicitly blames Democrats for George Bush’s war of choice. Obama’s negative attack line does not conform to the facts. Nothing could be farther from the truth. I should know. I was among the most prominent anti-war voices at the time—and never heard about or from then Illinois State Senator Obama.

George Bush made it clear publicly when lobbying for the bill that he wanted it not to go to war but to give him the leverage he needed to go to the United Nations and secure intrusive inspections of Saddam’s suspected Weapons of Mass Destruction sites. Who could argue with that goal? Colin Powell made the same case individually to Senators in the run up to the vote, including to Senator Clinton. It is not credible that Senator Obama would not have succumbed to Secretary Powell’s arguments had he been in Washington at the time. Why not? Obama himself suggested so in 2004. “I’m not privy to Senate intelligence reports,’ Obama said. ‘What would I have done? I don’t know.” He also told the Chicago Tribune in 2004: “There’s not much of a difference between my position and George Bush’s position at this stage.” According to press reports, Powell is now an informal adviser to Mr. Obama.
[...]