Pradip,
Why do you think the idea of change only appeals to younger and undecided generation? Are you implying that the younger generation in America are indecisive?

Seems like you are just pissed because Obama is getting so much attention. Why shouldn’t he? He has run a good campaign and people believe in him.

For a country marred by recession, global hatred and social imbalance, why wouldn’t CHANGE be necessary? In a politics which is flooded by lobbyists and nepotism why wouldn’t CHANGE be important? At least he talks about it.

I did not hear George Bush talk about HOPE and CHANGE when he ran for office. I guess he had no plans to “changificate” or “hopify” America and the Americans. This year, every candidate joined Obama’s bandwagon of change after he swept Iowa just like that.

You think Obama rose to popularity because of Oprah. Dude, where have you been? Did Hillary become popular because 50 Cent endorsed her? Are you blind enough to not notice why Hillary is popular? She ran her campaign in the shadow of her husband, who is more of a celebrity than Oprah.

Do some research man. It’s good that you have an opinion but doesn’t Bill Kristol have one too? At least, get it right.

A giant circus. Pure entertainment.A bout between a neo-con and one of the most corrupt politicians in congress right now.

Btw did anyone know the Sen McCain once said

“Why is Chelsea Clinton so ugly? Because her father is Janet Reno” in a fundraiser. That is hilarious.

Obama’s got plenty of policy specifics — where have you been?

Pradip,

While it’s true that America is obsessed with celebrity status of its leaders, I’m intrigued that you’ve singled out Obama.

Not only was “change” a top consideration in the exit polls, it’s been a hot word in everyone’s campaign.

Huckabee said, “Americans are looking for a change” / Edwards said, “I believe deeply in change” / Richardson said, “Look, what we need is change, there’s no question” / McCain said, “I know that I have been an agent of change” / Clinton said, “I want to make change but I’ve already made change. I will continue to make change…I embody change” / Romney said, “Not only can I talk change with you, I’ve lived it” / Obama said, “Our time for change has come”. (source: The New Yorker)

And finally, Kucinich, while urging his Iowa supporters to select Obama as their second choice, said, “Senator Obama and I have one thing in common: Change”.

Clearly, the appeal of “change” is not limited to the young, the undecided, and the disenfranchised as you think, especially not at this time. Hillary Clinton was right in using the word “heal” in her speech. After eight years of George Bush on the one hand, and increasing challenge to America on the other (competition from Asia, dependence on fuel, hostility, etc), most find their nation wounded. “Change” will mean a different thing to each party, but everyone apparently wants to heal.

Despite it, your take on “change” isn’t one of the two most daring accusations you’ve made. The first, that Obama is a fad (by this, do you also mean that hope is a fad as is change?). Whether his rising popularity is short-lived, we have yet to see, but don’t forget that one of the things that has kept Obama in the race (as opposed to Kucinich, or even Nader), is not air-time, but money. The amount of funds his supporters raised from the very beginning has so far demonstrated staying power. But a “fad” also means popularity that’s not linked to the object’s actual quality, which brings us to daring accusation number two, that supporters of Obama are simpletons (by this do you also mean that supporters of hope and change are simpletons?). For this I turn to Ms. Toni Morrison, who in a letter of endorsement to Obama, eloquently mentions the qualities his supporters see in him, without failing to warn him against accusations similar to yours:

“In addition to keen intelligence, integrity and a rare authenticity, you exhibit something that has nothing to do with age, experience, race or gender and something I don’t see in other candidates. That something is a creative imagination which coupled with brilliance equals wisdom. It is too bad if we associate it only with gray hair and old age. Or if we call searing vision naivete. Or if we believe cunning is insight. Or if we settle for finessing cures tailored for each ravaged tree in the forest while ignoring the poisonous landscape that feeds and surrounds it.”

In the end everyone wants change, but what matters is: who embodies change? Certainly not Hillary. She is a woman, but she represents an older establishment, which some equate with having “experience”. What kind of “experience” is required to be a President anyway? Was it “experience” that led her to vote for the Iraqi War, believing there were weapons of mass destruction, and believing that it was the right thing for America? Was it “inexperience” that led Obama to vote against it from the beginning? Was it “experience” that allowed the Clintons to desperately, and rather shamelessly, gang up on her (or, their) rival?

Obama, on the other hand, does embody change beyond race and age. The “new” in him is not that he is black or that he is young, but that he offers the style of leadership that has yet to find its place in the White House, the kind that has indeed not been in the style of those “experienced”. The style (an offshoot of personality and background, naturally) is more informed by the present than that of others. Those who say Obama is the only candidate that comes close to being “a child of the world” are not far off. Excuse the metaphor, but if you indeed walk the countless streets of our global village, there are many more Obamas than McCains or Clintons. But perhaps you singled him about because in a way, it is difficult not to. All candidates have had no shortage of rhetoric and no excess of clearly-detailed policies, yet you ask more of him specifically. If you haven’t entirely given up on hope and change, is it because his rhetoric has been the most passionate and eloquent, and you only ask for a little tug before you believe it yourself? And though the policies he stands by are essentially the same as Hillary’s, their personalities differ drastically. What is so horrible about a leader who, in addition to having a straight voting record as a member of the Congress, and a fine run as a Senator, also seems naturally able to inspire? After all, whatever is great about America, the principle of liberty it has even stamped on its coins, comes from leaders who have inspired. Why must politicians be limited to dry blueprints? And isn’t it true that one of the crises of American progressives has been not the shortage of ideas, but the ability to sell them?

Lastly, Obama’s popularity did not shoot post-Oprah. It was clearly post-Robert-Dinero.

With Zbigniew Brzezinski as your poli advisor, how it there ever going to be change. The only thing that Obama will be able to change is the carpet in the Oval office.

Murkha,

What’s wrong with Brzezinski? Better than Sandy Berger and Albright! Btw, the only thing that George Bush did was change the oval office floor to oak and walnut wood. So when Obama comes to office, he will actually get to work and not worry about the carpet.

Obama seems like aa eloquent John Kerry to me. or may be second avatar. But Same old rhetoric..

Before: I have a plan
Now: We need change

When Rush Limabaugh, Billo, Laura Ingraham start ripping him off!!

Before:I have a plan to make a plan
Now:Yo’ brother you got me to shine some bling bling in whitehouse. That’s a change dawg OR
I need to change myself for the change AND YES I CAN

After losing elction:

Before:That’s unfair, I would have asked Karl Rove for the plan.
After: My Teddy bear of MA is such an old horse that he would sure help to change the
establishment in Washington, which, his family has helped to established. <>

“Why do you think the idea of change only appeals to younger and undecided generation? Are you implying that the younger generation in America are indecisive?”

By design, or by choice, the youths have lot less invested hence more conforming to the rhetoric of ‘change’.

“For a country marred by recession, global hatred and social imbalance,…”

Democrats ran and won back the Senate. Two years later they are still funding the damn war, unable to stop the relentless Republican machine even after their disastrous eight year reign. What makes you Obama hopefuls so hopeful that a 2-term senator from Illinois will be able to ‘change’ US domestic and foreign policies so drastic as to call it a ‘change’ or at least a departure from the norm? Politics is a dirty game, but you try to look the cleanest before jumping into the pit.

“This year, every candidate joined Obama’s bandwagon of change after he swept Iowa just like that.”

Obama has indeed patented ‘change’ this time around and the cohorts have started claiming who used it first! Hilarious.

“You think Obama rose to popularity because of Oprah.”

Positive – 100%

“Did Hillary become popular because 50 Cent endorsed her?”

It worked against Hillary, apparently. Why in the world would anyone publicize getting endorsed by a rapper. Tough luck!

“She ran her campaign in the shadow of her husband, who is more of a celebrity than Oprah.”

Negative, I think she’s an independent woman who can formulate policies without her husband’s oversight. Exactly, she’s trying exceedingly hard to come out of her husband’s shadow. The more she’s able to the better it is for her.

“Do some research man. It’s good that you have an opinion but doesn’t Bill Kristol have one too? At least, get it right.”

Stop reading Weekly Standard too much. You approve me of having an opinion but disapprove of having one that goes contrary to your thinking/belief?

More response tomorrow…

More on Zbig, for whoever wanted it.

His book, “BETWEEN TWO AGES” was published in 1976 , the book is about how people’s mind – their mood but also their thought – will be the target of manipulation without even realizing it.

Some quotes by Zbig Br
#The technetronic era involves the gradual appearance of a more controlled society. Such a society would be dominated by an elite, unrestrained by traditional values. Soon it will be possible to assert almost continuous surveillance over every citizen and maintain up-to-date complete files containing even the most personal information about the citizen. These files will be subject to instantaneous retrieval by the authorities

#Today we are again witnessing the emergence of transnational elites … [Whose] ties cut across national boundaries …It is likely that before long the social elites of most of the more advanced countries will be highly internationalist or globalist in spirit and outlook … The nation-state is gradually yielding its sovereignty… Further progress will require greater American sacrifices. More intensive efforts to shape a new world monetary structure will have to be undertaken, with some consequent risk to the present relatively favorable American position.

What started as a whisper in Springfield drone drone drone . The saddest part of it all is people buying into this bullshit.

Pradip:
I am not going to write another essay to your response but will add something quick: I cannot believe you think she is even attempting to come out of Bill’s shadow. Is that why she had him campaign in South Carolina so that she can campaign in California?

And like Sarahana added, I think there is not a single candidate who is not speaking about change. They know that’s what people want and possibly need. So why is Obama wrong but McCain and Huckabee right?

BTW, Weekly Standard does not make my list. I don’t think it ever will. And like I said, its great you have an opinion thats arguable, but it’s good to get the facts right.

Murkha:

The reality is that an election platform is too soon to tell whether it’s bullshit or not, and that goes for all candidates, unless there’s enough in their history to call them out on certain things. I would actually love to hear some of those things, not just pertaining to Obama, but Clinton and McCain as well.

If White House is the real test, it boils down to: who of the ones running would you rather see put under the test? There are those who will take a chance on someone, and there are those who’d rather not.

Here I’ll try to summarize your rather lengthy response in succinct manner. This should not be taken as lack of thorough idea. It is done simply to save time and space. — “Clearly, the appeal of “change” is not limited to the young, the undecided, and the disenfranchised as you think, especially not at this time.”

Whether it is LIMITED or not is not my point. But it certainly APPEALS to the young, the undecided and the disenfranchised more so than the old and those more connected to the establishment. Thus the young are more than likely to support a cause which promises to change, if not, overhaul macro reality rather than rally behind pragmatic and issue driven campaign. Further, short attention span coupled with lack of available time allocated to the abstractions of politics makes it easy to follow a sermon-like campaign which most of Obama’s speeches reflect. — Why Obama a fad?

The sheer popularity achieved overnight can only have one scientific explanation: FAD! Further, for the fad to have some staying power and become a popular trend, it’ll need to prove that the euphoria of idealism and supposedly transcendence virtue can in fact deliver in practical sense when summoned. Since I do not think a 2-term senator has enough perseverance – mostly because he is inexperienced in the ways of partition politics, I arrive at a conclusion that he will get decimated by the Republicans while on campaign or even after taking the office. — Supporters are simpletons…

There’s no use of universal qualifier ALL in my opinion piece. Toni Morrison has her opinion. What’s your point then, that she supports Obama hence not all supporters are simpletons? Ms. Morrison may have her reasons to support Obama which she articulates well. But the gist of her super flattery prose again hides behind phrases like ‘creative imagination which coupled with brilliance equals wisdom’. Ok, creative imagination he has in idealistic terms - he HOPES all the time. How does Ms. Morrison infer brilliance which she then sums up to bestow WISDOM on Obama? She solves an equation where most variables are unknown and gives you Obama as the answer. The chosen one indeed! Uff…

“She is a woman, but she represents an older establishment, which some equate with having “experience”. What kind of “experience” is required to be a President anyway?”

How does she only represent older generation when she’s dealing with issues of:

-strengthening the middle class
-access to universal healthcare
-phased withdrawal of troops
-improving schools
-tackling energy and environment issues and many more to quote here…

…beats me where you guys get the idea that experience in passing legislations go contrary to be able to govern the country.

Naturally you do become more experienced with age. It is one thing to intellectually project the wisdom one gains through knowledge, or ‘charisma’ more so in Obama’s case, but altogether different to actually have acquired that wisdom through the most natural way.

No experience required to be a President at all. Only we HOPE that the candidates have enough foresight, guided by experience and knowledge to be able to govern supposedly the most important country in the world whose policies can severely affect rest of the world and population. And no, US should not invade Pakistan to retrieve Osama Bin-Laden which Obama once said he would certainly like to. Goes to show his immaturity doesn’t it? — Why not applicable to McCain or Romney or Hukabaaaa?

They are simply outside my ‘attention spectrum’.

>>Is that why she had him campaign in South Carolina so that she can campaign in California?

On hindsight it did not matter. She lost SC. Don’t you see, it was as if she did not care to campaign there hence she sent Bill. Why are you asking me stupid questions? Be prepared for stupid answers then.

Everybody uses resources they have in a battle. That’s called proper allocation of resources. Why the hell are you crying about Bill being on Hillary’s side? He’s her husband for god’s sake! She has probably lost more by being Bill’s wife than she has had to gain.

Pradip,
Where do you get the idea that Obama’s popularity is an overnight phenomenon? Obama first appeared as the star he is now *four* years ago, when he grabbed the attention of both his party and the party’s supporters with his key note speech at the Democratic National Convention in Boston. This was in July 2004, shortly before he defeated his opponent in the very last minute, by a huge margin (70% to 27%) in the Senator race. It’s simply this: some people naturally inspire, some people don’t, and from all the stories I’ve heard, Obama seems to be one of those who inspires all who cross his path.

The Obama mania was already in full swing while the media was still speculating who Oprah would endorse. And another fact remains, older white women still tend to support Clinton. As for the African-American push, Obama doesn’t exactly need help. As the decision between Clinton vs. Obama nears, obviously you expect the buzz to peak superbly (it’s called “Super Tuesday” after all), but his campaign’s been gathering speed (and money) from the very start. But there’s one key aspect you’re missing (one that matters more than Oprah): the independents. That’s where Obama is creating interesting effects. If you read the piece on the recent TIME poll, independents would vote for McCain over Clinton, but Obama over McCain, and all of the states he won on Feb 5th were also the ones where independents had a sway.

The main difference between John Kerry and Obama is that Obama has inspired “For Obama” votes (therefore the biggest turnout in primaries and caucuses, unlike before) while Kerry inspired “Anti-Bush” votes. And if you go back to the news archive since the candidates announced their intention to run for President, you will see that with every speech Obama gave, his support base multiplied. In fact, there were even worries on “Super Tuesday” that because his biggest strength has been such speeches, he would not do so well in key states where he wouldn’t be able to personally campaign like it’s been his tradition.

re: Toni Morrison. Just because she’s not a simpleton doesn’t mean the rest are not. But in the quote I included, she speaks exactly to the “simpleton” brand of accusations. And she also explains what others, like her, see in him, because it seemed to me that you were asking “what do people see in him anyway?” The third thing she addresses in that quote is the relationship between specific policies and the larger context of principles, or perhaps wisdom.

re: Older establishment. Which of the Democratic candidates have *not* addressed the issues Hillary has? My point was that it’s the personality and the leadership *style* that are new. In fact, there’s no real difference of policies between Obama and Hillary. But whereas Hillary has trained herself to fit right into Washington (she has successfully become one of them), Obama repeatedly challenges the lobbyists in Washington (has refused to take any money from them, unlike Hillary). He is challenging the framework, which goes beyond issues. The framework, within which Hillary operates, *is* the establishment.

“Where do you get the idea that Obama’s popularity is an overnight phenomenon?…”

Probably the same source everybody gets it from.

The press apparently did not call ‘The Obama Tsunami’ hitting the east coast for no reason. And Tsunami can be interpreted as sudden rise of wave in otherwise calm water. There you go, put two and two together.

So a guy had a stellar debut during Kerry’s nomination. So what? Presidential race is apparently a hard and long fought battle, totally different from making a 20-minute speech, which he’s probably coming to realize now. Of course you get temporary spikes in the polls after any sermon-like speech. To think that he became ‘popular’ in presidential sense then is to absolutely undermine the process this country prides in so much.

By ‘independents’ do you mean the sound-byte junkies? The same group that re-elected Bush in 2004? Yeah, I have a lot of faith in them…

Quickly, if you want my exclusive opinion on Obama vs. McCain and Clinton vs. McCain, I’d say the TIME poll is probably accurate as the ‘swingers’ tend to prefer a rather conservative candidate over liberal. Thus ‘swingers’ choosing McCain over Clinton does not surprise me at all. FYI, McCain is apparently having a hard time proving how conservative he is! Ironic that a candidate on Democratic ticket is having an easier time appealing to the conservatives than their own Republican candidate. Conclusion, only goes to show how ‘swingers’ perceive Obama as more conservative than either McCain or Clinton. And CHANGE you really expect from a relatively conservative candidate?

So who is right? Are the ‘swingers’ with their relatively conservative values, or you with your uber-progressive one? Can’t have both ways, the guy’s gota draw a line somewhere and I think he will coil to Republican pressure more so than Clinton.

Ask me: why did then the most liberal of the liberals, Ted Kennedy, endorse Obama?

Answer: Who knows, maybe he was drunk on Johnny Walker.

More on Toni Morrison, older establishment and how Hillary is far more qualified than Obama tomorrow… Cioa!

“More on Toni Morrison, older establishment and how Hillary is far more qualified than Obama tomorrow… Cioa!”

Here it is
http://www.judicialwatch.org/judicial-watch-announces-list-washington-s-ten-most-wanted-corrupt-politicians-2007

Shoot.Both Obama and Billery are on this list.

Sorry about the longest link,I guess wordpress doesn’t support overflows.

Textile maybe??

Alternatively, Obama, compared to Clinton, can also be seen by the independents as:

- more patriotic
- less cold / more fiery
- more honest
- more bipartisan
- less elite
- more religious
- not female

If the motive was conservative values, McCain would still top Obama, so that explanation doesn’t hold up.

In any case, Obama’s “tsunami” doesn’t come from being ultra-progressive. While his policies (like Hillary’s) are pretty sound, his edge is, like you said, charm (which by the way shouldn’t be underestimated in politics anyway).

Democrats are still pretty much divided amongst Hillary and Obama, yet one is a tsunami and the other is not. It’s not because one is a fad. It’s because he is an underdog who is giving the main competitor a run for her money (bringing in new voters in huge groups helps too). The magnitude of his momentum and success may be described as that of a tsunami, but that doesn’t mean the Obama sensation hasn’t been in the making these last few years.

A Jan 17, 2007 article on Washington Post, published a day after Obama announced his candidacy, says:

“Sen. Barack Obama of Illinois, whose best-selling books and political travels generated huge pressure to run for the White House, joined a crowded Democratic field yesterday, vowing to advance ‘a different kind of politics’ in a campaign that could make him the nation’s first African American president.”

It goes on to say: “Obama and Clinton are considered the leaders of the Democratic field…”

Tsunami or not, it’s impossible to ignore the actual building of a movement he has succeeded in (bu his support base, I don’t mean temporary spikes in polls, I mean people who joined his campaign, gave money, signed up to volunteer, etc.) You may have an opinion on whether or not campaigning skills has a lot to do with Presidency, but to say that his rise has had no build-up or history is asking to alter the facts.

Dear Pradip,

Here are more simpletons:

Barack Obama won the endorsement of former Federal Reserve Chairman Paul Volcker. “It is only Barack Obama, in his person, in his ideas, in his ability to understand and to articulate both our needs and our hopes that provide the potential for strong and fresh leadership” [Bloomberg]

Washington Gov. Chris Gregoire endorsed Barack Obama for president…she said Obama is a charismatic and skilled leader who can bring the country together, help solve nagging problems, and restore the country’s image abroad.[SeattlePI]

Kentucky congressman John Yarmuth endorsed Illinois Sen. Barack Obama [AP]

Iowa Gov. Chet Culver has endorsed Democrat Barack Obama for president. [Des Moines Register]

Seventh District Rep. Dave Obey, D-Wausau, announced today that he is supporting Sen. Barack Obama, D-Illinois, for president in the 2008 Presidential Election. Obey originally endorsed former Senator John Edwards, D-N.C., but withdrew his support after Edwards dropped out of the race. In his statement, Obey said Obama gives the United States the best chance for a new start. [Wausau Daily Herald]

Service Employees International Union (SEIU) — endorsed Barack Obama for president over Hillary Rodham Clinton. “Nobody makes a bigger difference in organizing campaigns in this state than SEIU,” said Congressman Adam Smith, Obama’s state chairman. [The Seattle Times]

Rep. Tim Walz has become the fourth U.S. House member from Minnesota to line up behind presidential contender Barack Obama.. “As a superdelegate to the Democratic National Convention, I will honor their decision and support Senator Obama,” Walz said….
Obama defeated New York Sen. Hillary Clinton 67 to 32 percent in Minnesota, one of his more solid Super Tuesday performances…. The Illinois senator had already won the endorsements of Minnesota Democrats Keith Ellison, Betty McCollum and Jim Oberstar. Oberstar came over from the John Edwards camp after the former North Carolina senator dropped out. [Star Tribune]

Sen. Thomas “Mac” Middleton (D-Charles) today endorsed Sen. Barack Obama for president at a rally in Annapolis. … Md. Attorney General Douglas F. Gansler (D) and Rep. Elijah Cummings (D-Md.-7) have joined Obama’s Maryland team as co-chairmen. Comptroller Peter Franchot (D) is also supporting Obama. [Southern Maryland Online]

Omaha Mayor Mike Fahey on Wednesday endorsed Illinois Sen. Barack Obama for president, and released the following statement:
“Throughout his career, Senator Obama has united Democrats, Republicans and independents to make progress on health care, energy independence, and government transparency. In Nebraska, we know that you have to reach across the aisle to get things done.” [KETV-7]

Congressional candidate Donna F. Edwards endorsed Sen. Barack Obama (D-Il.) for president, referring to him as a “fellow agent of change.
Edwards’ endorsement comes almost a month after her opponent U.S. Rep. Albert R. Wynn (D-Md.) announced his support for Obama.” [WashPost]

Senators such as Tim Johnson, Kent Conrad, Ben Nelson and Claire McCaskill, as well as governors Janet Napolitano and Kathleen Sebelius, who hail from red states where Democrats openly worry about what could happen to the rest of the ticket if Hillary Clinton is perched at the top…. his [John Edwards’] superdelegates are already joining the Obama movement. Even before the former North Carolina Senator dropped out of the race on Jan. 30, at least two of his congressional backers had shifted their endorsements to Obama, and more are expected to follow… Obama has inherited much of former Democratic leader Tom Daschle’s political organization—and with it, Daschle, who is one of Obama’s most committed campaigners. [TIME]

By the way:

‘After the Nevada caucus, Hillary Clinton strategist and pollster Sergio Bendixen asserted in an interview that Hispanic voters have not shown a “willingness or affinity to support black candidates.” … Far worse than the comment’s inaccuracy was that it was picked up and repeated over and over again by media outlets to the point that it became unchallenged dogma within a week.
http://www.newsweek.com/id/109363

‘The Clintons’ line about Obama is that he’s all talk and little action—star of ‘the biggest fairy tale I have ever seen,’ said Bill. So what’s the reality?’ http://www.newsweek.com/id/91755/page/1

“Alternatively, Obama, compared to Clinton, can also be seen by the independents as:…”

Notwithstanding the resemblance of high school popularity contest, since you imply that their motive is person-specific rather than issue-specific, then why/how would the ‘issues’ matter to them anyway? You are contradicting yourself.

And what would the Democrats do if Republicans decide to pick Alan Keys for VP to split the black votes? Teddy Kennedy will get a second heart attack this year - first when Giants won the Super Bowl.

“If the motive was conservative values, McCain would still top Obama, so that explanation doesn’t hold up.”

McCain’s issues are comparatively liberal. Just that he’s on the wrong side.

“…his edge is, like you said, charm (which by the way shouldn’t be underestimated in politics anyway).”

Charm has a way of fading away just like luck, probably quicker. And over time, it decreases in value because it becomes more and more difficult to be enchanted by the same face and sermon over and over again. So I would not rely exclusively on something that fades away with time, especially in politics.

“…‘a different kind of politics’ in a campaign that could make him the nation’s first African American president.”

Well some already bestowed the title of nation’s first black president to Bill Clinton. But I guess the hue matter to the hue less.

“The magnitude of his momentum and success may be described as that of a tsunami, …but to say that his rise has had no build-up or history is asking to alter the facts.”

The argument still remains that Obama sensation is an outcome of temporal phenomenon mostly supported by his charming personality which you contend is his ‘edge’, not to forget his mass hypnotizing twin slogan – HOPE and CHANGE. Whether he can translate the ‘edge’ into gravitating presidential material by facing issues head on with his contender without hiding behind preacher-like sermons, and come out victorious, remains to be seen.

The matter of choosing candidate is still a very personal one. Thus, to go by all that’s printed, or try to paraphrase some author’s position regularly to push a point usually seems moot to me. But in our tradition of fly-by commenting, who cares?! The following seals the deal for me:

“… but I found myself increasingly wary of and resistant to the salvational fervor of the Obama campaign,…I can picture President Hillary in the White House dealing with a recalcitrant Republican faction; I can’t picture President Obama in the same role because his summons to history and call to hope seems to transcend legislative maneuvers and horse-trading; his charisma is on a more ethereal plane, and I don’t look to politics for transcendence and self-certification.” (James Walcott, Vanity Fair)

KDS

It really doesn’t pertain to the discussion whether politicians and celebrities endorsing Obama would actually absolve the public form being simpletons. Rather, celebrity endorsements tend to distort the image of the candidate, making public more vulnerable to becoming a simpleton. I thought the point was made clear on Morrison’s case above. If you need more clarification I’d be glad to provide some other time.

You provide a bunch of politicians and members of the establishment – current and former, who have endorsed Obama. It still fails to impress me because I think politicians make very strategic decisions to benefit their relative standing. So I have no reason to believe they support Obama out of self-less and altruistic act or for their quoted lauds really. Nice try though.

Oh, and I was told that Obama intends to fight the establishment. Apparently not!

Pradip,
The problem I see in your stand is not that you prefer Hillary (seems like a fine choice), or even McCain, but that you dismiss Obama entirely.

You believe in Hillary because she is a seasoned politician. But you don’t believe politicians who endorse Obama because they are seasoned politicians. Finally, you don’t believe in Obama because he is not a seasoned politician.

McCain is comparatively liberal, but compared to who? The qualities I listed independents might see in Obama (vs. Clinton) are possible perceptions of his personality, and I should probably add, “more likable”. Issues are the same, so I see no contradiction.

The “black president” reference of Bill Clinton comes from none other than Toni Morrison. In the defense of his impeachment, she had said:

“White skin notwithstanding, this is our first black president. Blacker than any actual black person who could ever be elected in our children’s lifetime. After all, Clinton displays almost every trope of blackness: single-parent household, born poor, working-class, saxophone-playing, McDonald’s-and-junk-food-loving boy from Arkansas.”

But like her and other “For Obama” supporters, I believe this to be a race of wisdom:

“Wisdom is a gift; you can’t train for it, inherit it, learn it in a class, or earn it in the workplace — that access can foster the acquisition of knowledge, but not wisdom”

You don’t believe in that kind of wisdom, but others do. And the divide amongst progressives between Hillary and Obama may as well be philosophical.

Alan Keys was defeated by Obama in 2004 by a margin of 70% to 27%. It would be interesting to see someone like him enter the scene, but adding another black player to the game creates a negligible threat to Obama, in my opinion.

This not offense or defense, just sharing an interesting endorsement of Obama that has just come in from The Nation:

“This magazine has been critical of the senator from Illinois for his closeness to Wall Street; his unwillingness to lay out an ambitious progressive agenda on healthcare, housing and other domestic policy issues; and for postpartisan rhetoric that seems to ignore the manifest failure of conservatism over these past seven years. But as Christopher Hayes argued in our cover story last week, Obama has also exhibited a more humane and wise approach to foreign policy, opposing the Iraq War while Clinton voted for it, and has been a reliable progressive ally over the course of his career. While his rhetoric about ‘unity’ can be troubling, it also embodies a savvy strategy to redefine the center of American politics and build a coalition by reaching out to independent and Republican voters disgruntled and disgusted with what the Bush era has wrought. Most important, we feel his candidacy, in its demonstrated investment in organizing and grassroots activism as well as his personal appeal, represents the best chance to forge a new progressive majority. For these reasons we support Obama for President.”

Full endorsement

This is getting too convoluted. Let me set the record straight once and for all.

>>>The problem I see in your stand is not that you prefer Hillary (seems like a fine choice), or even McCain, but that you dismiss Obama entirely.

Like I said many many times before, I do not believe in Obama precisely because of why many believe in – primarily CHARM. That does not cut it for me. I am not trying to go on a date with this guy that I am looking for someone to CHARM me throughout. Again, why do I think CHARM doesn’t cut it?

Here:

“Charm has a way of fading away just like luck, probably quicker. And over time, it decreases in value because it becomes more and more difficult to be enchanted by the same face and sermon over and over again. So I would not rely exclusively on something that fades away with time, especially in politics.”

>>>You believe in Hillary because she is a seasoned politician.

Who/What is a SEASONED POLITICIAN? I think Hillary will do a better job than ‘Obama the hopeful’ because of her pragmatic approach to taking on the issues, unlike Obama’s idealistic sermon devoid of practical legislative appeal.

>>>But you don’t believe politicians who endorse Obama because they are seasoned politicians. Finally, you don’t believe in Obama because he is not a seasoned politician.

Endorsements are what I don’t believe in. Politicians endorsing one another is like saying ‘I’ll cover your back when I get to the office so let me get your constituency to beat the She-devil from NY’.

No, the black president reference comes from the Congressional Black Caucasus dinner that awarded the title to Bill Clinton in 2001. Morrison should not be bestowed with coming out with everything black.

“Wisdom is a gift; you can’t train for it, inherit it, learn it in a class, or earn it in the workplace?—?that access can foster the acquisition of knowledge, but not wisdom”

Ok, but how is the above sublime definition applicable to Obama? How is Obama WISER? Is she implying that Obama is the ‘golden child’ or perhaps the ‘messiah’ everybody’s waiting for? How nonsense to elevate an average politician into a transcendental figure.

To your Nation’s endorsement:

“The matter of choosing candidate is still a very personal one. Thus, to go by all that’s printed, or try to paraphrase some author’s position regularly to push a point usually seems moot to me.”

According to wikipedia (click for citations):

Morrison caused a stir when she called Bill Clinton “the first Black President;”…This opinion was adopted by Clinton supporters like the Congressional Black Caucus (CBC)[11] or ridiculed by critics.

The rest of my comment is not in response to Pradip (consider that argument finished from my side, for now), but rather in response to The Nation’s endorsement (for anyone interested), which by the way didn’t paraphrase any point I was trying to make, nor does it reflect my personal opinion, instead it has given me new realizations.

The editors of The Nation argue that Obama is the Democratic candidate most likely to win against Republicans, and since he’s also been a useful ally to progressives, they endorse him. They cite grassroots skills and personal appeal as his strengths. But the question still remains, why have those two things emerged as his strengths? And I think the reason is exactly the opposite of The Nation’s (Democratic majority is a very calculated, political reason).

In one of his speeches, Obama spoke of the time when nobody showed up at one of his early community meetings, and the small group of volunteers present were ready to leave, as was he. He then noticed some boys loitering, which led him to ask his disheartened friends, what would happen to the future of those boys if they gave up now? I think, that Obama’s personal appeal has more to do with the fact that “these boys”, in various ages, genders, and classes, are present in almost every American home. In being recognized, some of these “boys” — whose future is shaped not by what one political party does, but by what society does collectively — have recognized the onlooker in return. They have returned the gaze, and the gaze is beyond political party.

In other words, compared to all candidates, the appeal of Obama is the one that’s least political in the pure sense, i.e. politics that has been shaped by party politics, or working within Washington. In a way, he comes closest to being the centrist that America, feeling wounded, has been searching for. Editors at The Nation want a Democratic majority, but the “For Obama” supporters are for Obama, precisely because they place the candidate before the party, Democratic or Republican. They are for a ‘new kind of politics’, but what exactly is a ‘new kind of politics’?

It may very well be true that being immersed in politics gives you political experience, but that very gain can also erode the essential wisdom that can come from either being, or watching, boys loitering about Chicago, while a community meeting where nobody’s showed up is on the verge of closing. A ‘new kind of politics’ may be an effort to bring some of that humbled inspiration back into Washington. It may or may not be how a President is expected to run America these days, but what remains true is that there is a huge — some new, some old — group of people who haven’t found “experienced” politics satisfactory or effective in shaping the future of “the boys”. A ‘new kind of politics’, therefore, means simply that: changing what counts in Washington.

With the well tuned and finely orchestrated media campaign bombarding us from every angle, and with the Internet going feverishly crazy, we are all being subtly and subliminally manipulated into supporting one or the other. The would-be candidates are waging this psychological battle on us for affection and we are buying into it: hook, line and sinker.

How much of the opinions expressed here are truly ours ?? Are we not just reiterating rhetoric inculcated to us by the media ???

Forgetting the politics for a while….

Obama is young and charismatic with great oratory skills. In other words, he is tall, black and handsome, and a smoooooth talker. If “Obama Girl” has anything to do with it, he has already won. :)

It is just me or does Obama not share an uncanny resemblance to that lovable dude from “Gods must be crazy” ?? :)

Hillary on the other hand, exudes the maternal warmth that we instinctively cherish. With her polished look, she is that “yummy mummy” from next door who we aspire to occasionally spy upon. I reckon that most young folks would consider Mccain’s wife a M*lf. :) How ancient is she anyway ?? She sure looks sooo fine on telly !!

USA is a deeply religious and a conservative country. There is great talk of freedom but racial inequality and male chauvinism still bares root.

FOR ME, ITS BACK TO BASICS. Are the Yanks going to be choose the sweet talking black guy (I mean African-American, do pardon me) or the lady ??

The current situation of “the black guy vs a woman” is unprecedented in US history. Americans, for the first time in history are being audacious enough to try something different for change. I guess they are finally doing it the American way… and catching up with the rest of the “civilised” world, of course. :)

I am expecting some fundamental electoral changes in the good old US of A… the elimination of phobias of race and gender and a free and fair playing field for all Americans (with the help of the filthy rich donors, of course). :)

I wouldn’t be surprised if Mccain gets a large percentage of the vote even if he loses. There is no mystery in my mind why Bush won his second term in conservative America.

I stand corrected. Yes the patent goes to Ms. Morrison in some unofficial way. But the irony of it all, one who pinned the medal of ‘first black president’ to Bill, showed no hesitancy in shoving her frail black hand through the very chest to pull his heart right out by endorsing Obama. And you thought only establishment played the dirty game of politics! Frail and old black women do too sometimes.

Response to some of The Nation’s claims on his grass roots skills:

Obviously, for Obama, having not had sufficient track record of working within the specifics of larger framework, since he’s had about 7 years experience in Illinois legislature and hardly 4 years in senate, the only way to present the case is by pointing out to his days as a civil rights activist and ‘community organizer’, the flair of which got picked up by various mediums as his accomplishment. So whatever small success he’s had during those times or of more recent of forming his campaign gets magnified as genuine achievement which then permanently gets SPECULATED as his potential to make bigger changes in larger political arena.

In absence of facts, masses are left to relay on speculation. So after last night’s win, I upgrade tsunami Obama from a fad to a speculative bubble.

On personal appeal:

Yes he does – primarily because he is ‘fresh’, and his constant drumbeat of being able to ‘unite’ the country across party lines. Then again, those were claims Bush made too in 2000. And Bush (won?); I suppose the trick works, especially amongst independent herds.

On ‘These boys’, ‘new kind of politics’:

Notwithstanding anecdotal cynicism, it would surprise me if any career politician, at one point or another, did not have the idealism and drive to ‘change’ the system in their own way. Or who, I wonder, at some point didn’t look beyond themselves and considered the greater cause of restructuring the society – the newness they wanted to bring into the old existent system, within their own means. Whereas some may have caved in to society’s pressure to conform, others made decisions to tackle the system from within the system which, unfortunately, gets misinterpreted as lack of commitment to greater good these days.

That goes true for Obama as well. It would have been a pretty fascinating story had he remained an activist and not joined the supposed political establishment due to lack of trust he garnered for them. The purity of conscience would have displayed its flying colors then. He entered the same political arena to fight the cause he saw fit like all others, which hardly gives any indication of the spirit of ‘new kind of politics’ he intends to bring into Washington. While he is quick to distance himself as an ‘outsider’ that wants to change Washington, no aspect of his campaign reflects such, neither does it differ starkly from any traditionally run presidential ones. How then, is one to gauge the depth (barring his style) of his commitment and validate his claim for ‘new kind of politics’?

It has become a cliché to appeal to masses with standardized political catch phrases. These phrases, while intentionally differing in causes they promote, are nevertheless similar in intent to phrases used by corporations to capture consumers’ attention. While one cannot argue with such naïve stance as ‘what is wrong with using catchy phrases, everybody does it!’, those of us who are rather distrustful of grand and lofty promises made by public representatives, are naturally compelled to scrutinize them to the fullest extent before bestowing precious public trust in the hands of those aspiring super politicians every four years– whether old or new; botched or squeaky clean. While most candidates have already paid the scrutiny tax to certain degree this season, some more than others, Obama, having managed to finesse the crowds, and possibly the media, have temporarily slipped away.

pradip,

“Although, it would be nice to see the likes of Nader, Kucinich or even Ron Paul get some air-time every once in a while; but we all know the American media is too sheepish to provide that and the public too dumb and scared to demand one.”

The current issue of Time has an interview with Tim Russert, the guy who hosts meet the press. He is asked the similar question about giving every candidate a fair media time, he replies that media has done a fairly good job on giving all the serious candidate the airtime required. And the “seriousness” of candidate is decided by voters. Now calling public dumb is dumber, and if I try to reason it out why it is a dumb idea to call the whole public dumb, then i myself will be a big DODO. pheww..!

another thing, I second Saharana about the change in politics. it is not the stragety invented in 2008, it is the constant of politics. Even Geroge w.Bush said he would bring change. I think you are lacking on your research.

Now, why i support obama is because he has an odd name, he is covered in black skin, and he has a been through life like most people i know. these reasons are completely political, because i have always believed in a diverse america, in american dream and like Michelle obama that she never been so proud to be an american, I too feel the same way. i am finally proud of america. i am sure this is exactly what lot of people feel, but media is not willing to recognize it.

Sudesh,

Perhaps it is time for me to post part 2 of my ‘Obama Fad’ essay on samudaya. But nahhh…,the following will have to do for now.

>>Now calling public dumb is dumber, and if I try to reason it out…

DUMB is the word that seems to have disturbed you. Now DUMB as a figure of speech or idiom, can be understood in multiple ways. Being DUMB can be interpreted as being stupid and idiotic, which is how you seem to have taken it. Alternatively, one can also say disinterest, indifference and naivety to complex thoughts and ideas at large underscore the levels of dumbness one finds elsewhere. So take your pick and read the passage at you own peril.

>>He is asked the similar question about giving every candidate a fair media time, he replies that media has done a fairly good job on giving all the serious candidate the airtime required…

So? You expect the media huncho like Tim Russert, who is almost a mainstream media institution himself, to be critical of his own institution? When was the last time mainstream American media was critical of itself? Of course they’r always gonna pat on their own backs and say ‘we are doing heck of a job, Jack!’

Further, is it Russert’s credibility as a media man that makes it easier to swallow his remark or is it fact (or series of facts) one observes/gathers-although you can question the source of those facts, which do come from media after all, that allows one to arrive at some conclusion? It is a vicious cycle. Think about it seriously and then get back to me.

>>Now, why i support obama is because he has an odd name, he is covered in black skin, and he has a been through life like most people i know

Conversely, none of those are serious considerations for me. For political reasons exactly, unlike what you said, I do not feel the need to evaluate a candidate on superficial factors you find compelling - name, color, gender, ‘kinda feels like someone I know’ feeling etc., etc.

>>…because i have always believed in a diverse america, in american dream and like Michelle obama that she never been so proud to be an american, I too feel the same way…

Good enuff! Then again I don’t have that level of reverence towards ‘Americana’ as you do. More than being limited to nationality (and benefits derived from it), which is already going too far from its traditional intention, American experience is characteristically transforming itself back into racial or even religion-like euphoria these days. Thus, suffices to say, anything that grows out to become more than what it is intended to be is certainly a hype as far as I concerned. But what do I know, I just got here fresh-off-the-boat compared to those who feel the land owes them more than what they are getting now.

And finally, I necessarily do not see myself as part of overarching ‘American identity’ as most immigrants do. Perhaps for this, it allows for greater objectivity and lot less emotional decision-making than for most who have greater stake in the game and thus find themselves in more passionate and compromising position concerning their future.

keep doing ya thang obama god is with you ride that american dream till god say you cant ride no more for he is the only one that can judge anyone keep ya head up and do what you been doing all you life as a lot of people can already see keep winning and live that american dream.

”Now DUMB as a figure of speech or idiom, can be understood in multiple ways.”

Similarly many filthy words and name calling can be used a figure of speech. But should be used in a public forum? If I call names like stupid and dumb, and use filthy words as my reference to make point you think I am able to make any point? Yes, in fact I am able to make point but it just wouldn’t be in a respectful manner. And I believe this forum is not about degrading public opinion.

“S? You expect the media huncho like Tim Russert, who is almost a mainstream media institution himself, to be critical of his own institution?”

Of course I do not. But he has great knowledge on the field of media and politics more than most of the population, so that makes me want to take his statements into consideration. Maybe what he says isn’t right, but what he says is important and something to note upon. I will even take your remarks seriously if you can somehow prove to the world with you work and your efforts that you are a knowledgeable man.

“Then again I don’t have that level of reverence towards ‘Americana’ as you do. More than being limited to nationality (and benefits derived from it), which is already going too far from its traditional intention,”

You are perfectly fine where you stand. Obama is who I support; Clinton is who you and my mother support. I don’t think it is necessary for me to argue on anything you have written. America is a country I have come to love and live on, but I know she lacks and is very far behind on many things like Foreign policy, immigration, energy, education, etc etc. But my favorite one is America has not yet understood the sentiments of the new waive of immigration that America has encountered. An average Joe on the street still considers immigrants who have shaped and whose philosophy continues to shape America as the white puritans and Christians. Which is not true anymore, there are people of many colors and many nationalities. There are people who call this country thier home, but do not speak a word of English. Many people who came here in recent decades have kept all their heritage and culture alive, including my mother who has a Puja Kotha in her house. That is the new America. And I believe this America needs a new kind of representation. And that is why I support Obama.

Saharana,

I like how you have reasoned out The Nation’s article. I missed your post, that is exactly what I have been also trying to say. It is the new kind of politics. What is this new kind of politics, will take a long study, but it seems its working and gaining attention of lot of people. It is making history on turn outs of the voters. Till now it has been good.

BoxCutter,

“FOR ME, ITS BACK TO BASICS. Are the Yanks going to be choose the sweet talking black guy (I mean African-American, do pardon me) or the lady ?? ”

What you have said is abslutly ridiculous. That is not true, it is not back to basics. America is constantly developing and changing. I am not repeating the rhetoric. You can find suffiecient evidence on chaning America by only watching televisions, movies, and going to Wallmart and visiting Mall and gas stations. I am sure the majority of Americans do not think yanks, black guys or a woman. You are taking a complicated issue and trying to simplify it. You cannot do that. there are even discussions about gender roles. I think you have misunderstood America greatly.