Bookworm on Oct 29 2006 at 12:10 pm | Filed under: African-Americans, Democrats, Media matters
Barack Obama, bright though he may be, strikes me as nothing more than a media creation. Patrick thinks so too.
Email This Post To A Friend
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Charles Martel on Why blogging seems a little stale, flat, and unprofitable of late
beefrank on The Left — criminalizing childhood
Spartacus on The Left — criminalizing childhood
Ymarsakar on The Left — criminalizing childhood
JKB on The Left — criminalizing childhood
Libby on The Left — criminalizing childhood
Marica on The Left — criminalizing childhoodJKB on The Left — criminalizing childhoodYmarsakar on The Left — criminalizing childhood
Danny Lemieux on Why blogging seems a little stale, flat, and unprofitable of late
He has the help of the media, but I tend to think it is the other way around. His charisma creates his media persona, instead of the media creating his charisma. You can tell by his mannerism and the way he speaks. HIs charisma is on the level of a Clinton, the male not the female.
Nothing worse than believing your own press releases.
You mustn’t call him bright, or the Democrats will call you a racist for implying that black people on the whole are not bright.
I am not kidding. They have done this before, except that the word was “articulate.”
Are the Democrats trying to imply that all blacks are as black as the darkest African interior dudes?
I also feel as if he’s insincere and glib. I don’t know why I have that reaction but he seems so slick. Maybe it’s his being “annointed”.
I’m unimpressed. He got shellacked the first time he ran for office, then managed to get to the senate, where he’s been for two years during which time he’s done… what?
I don’t notice much charisma, either, so far he’s pretty bland.
I would say to this point he’s purely a media creation, and unless he gets Bill to okay him, he isn’t going to be running for the presidency anytime soon, either. The Clintons still control the purse-strings, Bill remains the biggest fund-raiser, and Obama runs for nothing without the official OK.
If you don’t like his position, JJ
If you don’t like his position, JJ of course you won’t see the charisma
it doesn’t work on you. But there are things you can look for for whether it may work on someone else. Obama certainly has a magic of some type that works on others, you must admit that.
The “cute” male counterpart to the ultra incompetent former Senator Carol Moseley Braun–another Oprahish creature that had NOW, Planned Parenthood, NARAL and Emily’s Lists types swooning at her every banality. If only for his photogenic quality, Senator Osama, I mean Obama (sorry!) will be around for a bit.
Barack Obama is the real deal. Mark my words.
Not even I think he is the real deal, even though I know he appears that way. And certainly JJ won’t think he is the real deal, by any margin.
He’s going to have show me something before I bother to think of him at all. So far his accomplishment has been to keep a chair warm.
Oh, and I guess pissed off McCain, but that’s pretty easy.
I’d never heard of Obama until the day he was elected two years ago. I saw his various interviews and told my wife (and Bookworm at lunch the next day) that the Democrats had found themselves a star. He is good-looking, articulate (I hope that doesn’t make me a racist), bright, yet almost comforting, in a way I can’t quite put my finger on, as if you can trust him to grow into the job of the presidency. My greatest fear from that day on was/is a Hillary/Obama ticket which would be very hard to beat.
That would take a Condi/Guiliani ticket. The magnetism certainly works on Don, even if it doesn’t on JJ.
“My greatest fear from that day on was/is a Hillary/Obama ticket which would be very hard to beat.” And why is that a fear?
Ymarskar–
You’re wrong. I don’t agree with his positions, but I understand his charisma. He is a very personable man.
I don’t know what you mean by that crack about the “darkest interior dudes”, at least I hope I don’t. Remember these are the people who condemned Tiger Woods for not being black enough (to his credit, he laughed it off).
Don Quixote–
You have already been labeled a racist for calling him articulate. That little canard was spread at the last national election two years ago.
A Hillary/Obama ticket would not be hard to beat, for the simple reason that it would have Hillary on it. Even Barack Obama couldn’t beat that handicap.
I live in the People’s Republic of Illinois, so Obama is a constant presence. He is, indeed, exceedingly articulate and charismatic (I don’t consider him bright; if he were he wouldn’t be a Democrat). What conservatives need to do, if there is to be any hope for us, is to win such people over to our side. A black Republican candidate with the charisma of Obama could turn the entire city of Chicago. And THAT would be the accomplishment of the millenium.
Love the cartoon they had of him on Townhall the other day.
Don doesn’t agree to with Obama’s positions either, Trish. How am I wrong in saying that Obama’s charisma crosses party lines?
Obama is the perfect symbol for the Democrat Party – attractive, multicultural, “Harvard”, he makes people feel good without without having to offer any kind of track record or ideas of substance. I, too, live in the People’s Republic of Illinois, which is ruled by a European-like politica machine where all politicians must be annointed through their fealty to corrupt power brokers. In that sense, Obama and St. Hillary are perfectcly suited for each other. However, it would be a disaster for our country to place its bets on these two blanks when we stand at the cusp of modern civilization’s survival. Byzantium ultimately fell because it rotted from within through internecine squabbling and its reliance on self-absorbed, less-than mediocre politicians, even as the forces of its destruction organized on its borders.
Hi Helenl,
Largely because I believe that Hillary, with the best of intentions, would greatly harm this country.
Dear Helen, tell me why Obama is the real deal. You are a poet, no? No doubt you can express yourself. I’m not sniping today; no round is chambered. I want to know your perceptions and insights on this.
You mustn’t call him bright, or the Democrats will call you a racist for implying that black people on the whole are not bright.
In answer to Trish’s concerns. I just think the Democrat focus on how bright a person’s skin color is, seems a bit weird.
Funny, reading all the comments I guess I must be missing a gene, or something.
“Charisma” just bounces right off me. Hell; John Wayne Gacy wasn’t short of charisma, and the guy who eventually got executed in Florida who killed fifty girls around the country (or some such number) obviously had charisma flowing out his nose. (Can’t remember his name worth a damn, but you know who I mean – even if I, for the moment, don’t.)
I get the concept – I well remember it got JFK elected in the absence of any discernable ability – but I just do not get it from this guy at all. To me he’s as bland as a bowl of corn flakes.
But, all that aside, and I’ll buy that I’m completely wrong about the charisma thing; what does anyone else think about the fact that the Democrat party remains the creature of the Clinton apparatus? Even with the obnoxious Terry MacAuliffe no longer chairing it, most of the money and the behind-the-scenes strings still lead straight to Juan and Evita. How does Mr. Charisma get around that?
Which, come to think of it, here’s a theory: is the media creating, or trying to create, an alternative to Evita precisely because they’ve finally awakened to the fact that ultimately the Clintons are losers, and though it takes forever the people eventually do see through them? (Bill lost congress in 1994; won the Presidency but had zero coattails in 1996; and lost the midterms in 1998. His sucessor and MacAuliffe (for whom the election, coming off the 1990s economy, shouldn’t even have been close)lost everything in 2000; and MacAuliffe lost the midterms in 2002; then again in 2004.
MacAuliffe was hand-picked by Bill to run things for the forseeable future – but he blew it. So they decided losing 5 of 6 elections was enough and he went.
But Bill remains the power – and certainly the money – in the party. How does Obama – or anyone else – get past that? Is one answer that the media blows him up out of all proportion and tries to elbow Evita aside that way? is that what’s really going on here?
I don’t know how Obama can get around it, but I know how you can get to Clinton. You just buddy up with him, and then use your influence on him to steer him in the “right direction”. Now if Herbert Bush was of the devious mind, then he would be in the perfect position to influence Clnton, given their friendship. And if the Bush family was nepotism orientated, then the father would be trying to get Clinton to do favors for Bush.
Obama can get something similar going, I suppose. Although I really don’t see how. He doesn’t seem to have the connections.
MacAuliffe was hand-picked by Bill to run things for the forseeable future – but he blew it. So they decided losing 5 of 6 elections was enough and he went.
We all know Bill had the worst possible judgement in choosing people for office. Sandy Berger, Dick Clark, Tenet, Janet Reno. The list goes on and on. Gore Vick or whatever.
I think the media being guillible, Obama is playing them like a lute.
You aren’t wrong on the charisma thing, JJ. It just doesn’t affect you for whatever reason. So it is definitely true that he has no magnetic aura over you.
JJ–
I agree with some of what you said, but not about Gacy. My former boss knew him, and she said he gave her the creeps.
Well zhombre, I’m not sure I can put words around why I think Obama’s “the real deal.” I sort of feel it in my bones. You see, in addition to being a poet, I’m a NASCAR fan. A few years back driver Tony Stewart was getting into all kinds of trouble (He hit a reporter, . . . ), but I said sttod by my driver and said that inside the troubled Tony was a great guy. Then Tony “changed,” and fans came out of the woodwork. Well, in additon to being a NASCAR fan and a poet, I did most of my graduate work in African American studies. I think Obama can bring a multi-cultural viewpoint to politics. The only bad thing people have to say about Barck Obama that holds any weight is that he lacks experience. I can understand that, but he will outgrow inexperience. We don’t fault people for being born young, but we don’t elect them as president either. Obama has not had enough time in public office to be declared a bad politician. Why he’s barely learned the ropes. But I feel it in my bones: He’s a “good egg”! After all, he’s a Democrat!
Well, darlin’, I won’t bein’ a NASCAR fan against you, though personally I don’t understand its attraction (I heard once there was a black NASCAR driver but he quit in disgust because he kept getting pulled over and asked for license and registration). One question: what is a multicultural viewpoint, and how is it functional in practical politics? Now I am from Chicago way back when, and politics there is about clientele, patronage, ward heeling (which hasn’t changed since the Romans voted in tribes in the Forum) and getting things done (and in Chi town you get things done or you get out of town). It’s practical. Isn’t multi culti more akin to balkinization, when the focus should be on what we have in common?
And thank you for responding, which I neglected to say.
Zhombre, By a multicultural viewpoint, I meant seeing the viewpoint of various groups. Obama is bi-racial, so that might make doing so eaaier. I agree the focus should be on what we have in common. So why is it all about the rich getting richer? And NASCAR is a cool distraction from the pressures of daily life!
And BTW, I’m not your darlin’.
Sorry
Apology accepted.
Hmmm – I believe that Tiger Woods is tetra-racial. That must mean that he would be right up there on Mount Rushmore. Let’s run him as our “feel good” president. Maybe all candidates should be required to reveal their DNA to the public record, much as they do their taxes. That way we could just vote on the basis of their DNA profiles. Perhaps, we could call it the “One Drop” rule – if you have one drop of ethnic blood in your veins, you are thereby qualified to see their world through that ethnic world view. Hmmmm. Reminds me of something long, long ago…
Woods’ Father was in the Spec Forces, Navy Seals if I recall. They don’t go into politics, often, on a family basis.
Just imagine people like Uncle Jimbo going into politics. The slaughter of our enemies would be extreme, even for my tastes.
Obama’s charisma isn’t based upon his race to me, but his rhetoric, and how he jibes up the positive feedback in speeches. White guys seem a bit stilted by comparison. You want to have the passion of a prophet thing going on. Some real hell fire.
If people like me, a thousand miles away in the Pacific Ocean, can tell the authenticity and genuinity of Barack Obama as a once in a lifetime generational gifted leader, it is a shame on the American people not to be able to.
I believe the biggest problem here is that the powerful American media establishment has completely taken away the ability of people in America to discern what is real and good for them.
The truth of the matter as I see it is that Barack Obama is the leader for America right now and most importantly, for the world. There are many reasons why I say this and I cannot put all of my reasons here.
Lemekid, we’re not voting for a messiah. We’re voting for a President. The guy has no experience, no world knowledge, no fixed principles — nothing other than a pretty smile. That’s not presidential material. He might be good for the speaker’s circuit, but not much else.
Bookworm, that is because you merely refuse to study him closely.
Secondly, you don’t need experience to be a President or a Prime Minister of a country. You need the mandate of the people and out of it, you do your job for the people and by the people. Period.
No one in the world was born with experience already with him or her. If experience is to be a factor, then I suggest the removal of the constitutional requirement that says a President should only be for 2 terms only. The reason is that they already have experience as a President.
Barack Obama was a Professor in Constitutional Law at the University of Chicago and he majored in International Relations at Harvard University. He later became a State Senator in Chicago.
What more do you need?
“The reason is that they already have experience as a President.”
It should have said, “The reason is hat they already have experience as a President so should be allowed to run for office again.”
I’m surprised to see that many in America believe that Hillary Clinton should become the President. Haven’t you guys had enough of the Bush, Clinton, Bush, Clinton stupidity?
It looks like America is stuck in a time warp and can’t get out of it. This is the result of too much indoctrination or mind control and now you don’t know your way out.
What more do you need? How about actual executive experience in business or government? Like having served as governor, or mayor of a large city such as NY, and not merely having worked in the insular world of academia or the provincial one of state legislatures. And as for the Bush Clinton Bush Clinton thing, couldn’t agree with you more. I’m NBC on that subject: No Bush or Clinton.
As I said before, you don’t need experience to lead a country. All you need is the mandate of the people to carry out their wishes through your manifesto. That’s why they elected you.
The infrastructure of government is responsible in carrying out your manifesto for the people.
This is an election where the people got to choose whom they want to lead them. That is what democratic election is all about.
By the way, anybody can stand as a candidate for President or Prime Minister of a country whether you went to school or not, a boss in a company or not. It does not matter, as long as you are a citizen of that country.
Or has America devised a criteria that requires a candidate to have some sort of executive experience (in what)?
To put experience in a better perspective, you just have to read the story of David and Goliath in the Holy Bible.
Someone trained as a shepherd boy killed a mighty warrior with years of military experience. Even the Israeli army and King were afraid of mighty Goliath and had discouraged David for his lack of military training.
Where did David get his experience from? Tending to his fathers sheep, he killed two beasts using his bare hands.Now that’s hands-on experience.
David later became King of Israel and using his shepherd boy experience, he led Israel and its people to become a great nation and left behind a legacy that remains today.
In Obama’s case, he was a community organiser in Chicago for a number of years. That’s where he got his leadership experience from just like David tending to his fathers flocks.
If only you Americans can go back to the basics of leadership, you’ll be good. Relying on an already corrupt Washington experience is NO NO good.
C’mon Americans, think!
Charisma does not guarantee good leadership. It didn’t for Mao, Che, nor Hitler.
Thinking isn’t much of a priority when folks pay attention to the siren’s lure of good rhetoric. Most political speeches are designed to make people feel, not think.
The experience issue is more of an indication issue. Direct experience is not required, but indirect experience in something sort of like executive management is a benefit, not a detriment.
I believe the biggest problem here is that the powerful American media establishment has completely taken away the ability of people in America to discern what is real and good for them.
That depends a lot on whether you believe the same of the European media.
The infrastructure of government is responsible in carrying out your manifesto for the people.
So the bureacrats get to make all the decisions, while the elected representative is simply elected as a figurehead with no real experience with how to control and manipulate power. Is that it?
Judgement is what matters. Nothing else.
The manifesto will dictate how the decision is made.
Your judgement can’t even come up with ways to defend your position. If that is all that matters for the manifesto, then so be it.
ymarsakar, you just confirmed what I had said earlier.
The level or degree of indoctrination that’s being done to you people’s brain by your media companies has made you people oblivious to the truth and reality.
By the way, I don’t have to defend anything. Truth hurts what say?
I feel sorry for you Americans.
Where you from, lemekid? Europe?
By the way, I don’t have to defend anything.
That is certainly obvious by now.
Where you from, lemekid?
He is from the anti-American side, what else do you need? AA pretty much covers most of the globe by now.