Ah Jesus Jesse. I'm going to duck in this corner while the fur flies.
Damn, Jesse. Once again you've humbled me.
I could not figure out how to describe the discomfort I felt at the Obama event, despite years of exposure to the self-help movement's est-remainders wing...my mother-in-law's church of choice.
When I was driving home, I flashed on the scene from The American President in which Michael Douglas responds to his rival's stump speech ending in "...and I'm running for President!" with "Well, glad he got that out there because that crowd was ready to buy some Amway products."
You should remove the disclaimer at the bottom Jesse
From someone slightly older who remembers those heady days: What tore the kids down was having RFK and JFK and all the rest murdered. The revelations about other behavior never dimmed the respect people had for them because they appealed to the better angels of our nature. That old magic got kids to go down South and help the Civil Rights movement, to join the Peace Corps, to actively face dozens of hidebound attitudes. The world is far better for that inspiration-and far freer tii,
It was the eloquence and magic of FDR that got millions to trust again, to fill the ranks of the CCC, the NRA, and later go overseas to fight the Nazis. The world is better off because FDR could inspire. Millions of Germans and others who grew up under freedom rather than dictatorship think so.
It was the practical brushoff by the elders of their concerns over Vietnam that bred cynicism and violence. Add the actions of so many agencies, drug dealers and all of the rest in formenting mistrust, no wonder people retreated from active politics.
I swear, the seeds of the suspicion of eloguence has less to do with being taken than the 40-year mourning process Democrats have gotten into. We fear eloquent leaders because we fear they will be taken away from us, not because we were deceived. Nixon was hardly silver-tongued, after all.
Obama knows that rallies are no time for a laundry list of programs and proposals. In the old days of eloquence-FDR, JFK, et cetera, there were people who handed out detail through flyers and broadsheets. These days it's on the net with more detail than is possible in a 10 minute speech. It's no different than a locker room speech-fire up the troops to vote and work and get other people to work.
Oh hell I promised myself to stay out but...
I can't make a statement on what being at either one of their rallies is like as I have not had the opportunity to go to one and I've already posted my feelings on speechifying.
As a person who voted for the man this morning, all I can say is that I made my vote only after boning up on exactly what the man is proposing.
The Obama I voted for is the guy I read about in news reports, blogs, and other media both for and against including Krugman and not from the man's speeches.
I don't think I'm alone in that but I have one question, if people clearly feel the man is dangerous (and before anyone jumps on me if Jesse just compared him to W and that's as bad as it gets) what is the alternative at this point?
People may be attracted to Obama for what he isn't saying but there are just as many if not more who are repelled from Hillary because we know exactly what she stands for.
Maybe it isn't all gravy on the Democratic candidate side after all?
Oh and BTW if you want the equivalent of Obama's "cult of personality" in supporters just head on over to Taylor Marsh's blog or go to the NY state NOW headquarter's website.
I suspect the closer Obama gets to the possibility of being the Democratic nominee we'll hear the word cult thrown around more and more.
Hell Bob Dole said it himself just a few hours ago.
Sigh.
Jesse -
agree with hubris. take down your disclaimer.
it holds little credibility after that post.
Jesse Wendel,
It is very nice to know that Hillary has a very detailed plan to get out of the war she voted us into.
I'm sorry but your focus on how Hillary's people treated the press better isn't something that makes me vote for one person or the other. Just because Hillary's stump speech is more wonkish doesn't make Obama a cult.
They both have health plans. They both suck. Hillary's has a mandate and Barack's doesn't. I don't see the point in mandating do-nothing stay legal private insurance, so I am nominally for Obama's less sucky plan.
Hillary voted us into the war in Iraq and as recently as a couple weeks ago defended her actions citing a "megalomaniacal competition between Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden". She also voted for Kyl-Lieberman which affirmed the state department labeling of Iran's state security apparatus as a terrorist organization- a clear prelude to war. Barack has said he would not only change the war "but the mindset that made us go to war in the first place". I'll take the guy who is talk over the women who is negative action any day of the week.
These aren't just all happy words, but real votes and real actions. He voted against immunity for telcos today while Senator Clinton didn't even bother to show up for the vote. Comparing Barack to some 80s huckster is a bit degrading and misses the point. Like I said before the "populist" becomes the "demogogue" and then the "cult leader". We can't control when the corporate press savages Obama, but Senator Clinton's insinuations that first of all Barack is not fit to be President(her "ready on day one" motto) and her surrogates talking about him being a drug dealer on the block will come back in a terrible way in the general election if/when Barack is the nominee. For his part Obama has never done the same to Clinton, citing instead his electability against McCain.
Perhaps a large rally isn't the best place to gain perspective, but for some of us, those like you I am guessing that supported neither of these candidates as your first choice, Obama offers a substantive alternative to Clinton and her policies of triangulation. Not all of the people supporting Obama right now are in it for salvation and the rock star phenomenon.
Change is a word that does matter and is being used effectively because the victory of Senator Clinton can only mean more of the same in a variety of public policy arenas.
wow... I have seen this before... if you can't tear down the momentum of the campiagn, by all means-- attack the supporters?! wtf.
latte drinking, volvo driving club for growth hack job.
The worse part of this, is that it comes out and says, that Obama people are not making and informed decision! I spent months making this decision after looking at policies and ideas.
and as for anecdotal... the staff was mean to me crap...I have helped organize 2 conference calls one with michelle one with barack and the staff were WONDERFUL.
it sounds like, I got access and the clinton people were nicer to me, so she should be president?
And for the fuzzy no specifics, give me a break. These are pep rally's. Go get em speeches, get your friends out to vote speeches. And still I find a lot of specifics. The conference call with Barack was filled with them. Esp. on education and heathcare.
Jesse, I am disappointed in you. You have said you want this to be a civil space where folks can feel welcome. But you are attacking the Obama supporters in this piece more than implying that not only do you feel the candidate lacks substance, but that the supporters do too.
club for growth indeed.
Whoa there, cowboys.
You couldn't have done a more precise and rapid job of proving Jesse's point: The Obama events bring to mind a sales meeting run by Werner Erhard.
If you have attended an event starring Obama and have a contradictory story to tell, I for one would love to hear it. I want my own observations to be wrong.
What more evidence do you want that I'm not endorsing Clinton when I say that the event had a creepy, Amway-convention tone?
Because this piece reflects exactly my experience at a similar event, I think it might be more productive to listen to the feedback on how you are being perceived than to argue with those of us who felt the wave of Obama-love and were scared rather than delighted by it.
I think it might be more productive to listen to the feedback on how you are being perceived than to argue with those of us who felt the wave of Obama-love and were scared rather than delighted by it.
So where do I fit in to you and Jesse's critique.
I never got the speeches because speeches from anyone just don't work for me but I voted for the man.
Carry out your assertion to it's logical conclusion. If you really feel this way about those who support Obama then what is the solution.
Do you feel I need deprogramming now?
Will there be government sponsored "reeducation" camps if Hillary wins the presidency?
Oh that's right you don't have one because that's not the point is it.
Leo Strauss came up with the phrase Reductio ad Hitlerum for people who couldn't argue a point without smaer someone as a nazi.
I suppose we need Reductio Ad Culterum for the people who can't argue against Obama without resorting to childish shit.
PhoneixRising, I hear you. but I am not buying it, I have seen this so many times before. This piece doesn't deserve a conversation because it is not about anything other than coming out and saying that the supporters are sheep/ cult members who are not thinking for themselves.
the krugman piece and jesse's piece here Are the things lacking substance.
My experience- I listed to obama talk about early ed, funding college. Working with micro credit in the developing world, stem cell research, etc. etc.
People have be banned from this list because they made others feel attacked. Well right now, I feel attacked. I am no cultist. I am no sheep. I looked at all the candidates, read, researched, and made my choice. And you know what, lots of other people did too.
If I wanted to waste my time, I could cut and paste tons of ardent Hillary supporters that seem obsessed. But I am not going to stoop to attacking the voters. I assume that they have their reasons for supporting their candidate just as I do.
First of all, remove the "I am not endorsing any candidate" disclaimer. It is ridiculous following a apost like this.
Second, I supported your position when you wrote that all progressives need to band together and support the eventual Dem nominee, but this piece is just about as divisive as anything I've read on the www and it completely negates the point I thought you were trying to make in your other, much more reasoned post.
Sorry Jesse, endorsing a candidate based on who sucked up to you more isn't probably going to win over alot of Obama fans here.
What Carol up above said.
=========
"When the mass media which as we all know is in the bag for the Republicans, tears Obama down off the pedestal they presently are promoting him on, it will rip the heart out of these children of our future, much as it destroyed the hopes of the JFK/MLK generation four decades ago."
As someone who was there and who's lived with the heartbreak and engendered cynicism from those days I have to say, it wasn't the Media-it was the Murders of RFK, Malcom, MLK (in one single year!!!) that destroyed hopes.
And I went to an W. Erhardt sales pitch back in the day. I didn't buy it then and I don't buy your analogy now. Erhardt was all about the "me", while what I hear from Obama is all about the "we". BIG difference.
I second the notion that to use that neutrality statement is tantamount to a lie considering the post it is attached to... on something else I might buy but there is some shit I am unwilling to eat.
_____________________
I’ve had enough of this lame "Obama doesn’t have a plan bullshit…" you don’t use campaign rallies to outline procedures.
Want to see his plan for America...
Start here:
www.barackobama.com/pdf/
ObamaBlueprintForChange.pdf
It is a downloadable PDF of a 64 page document and pragmatically covers most if not all the important issues of the campaign
Read your choice of specific issues at the following:
http://www.barackobama.com/issues/
As an example this what you will find among, backgrounders, past accomplishments and other information about...
The Economy
Barack Obama's Plan
Provide Middle Class Americans Tax Relief
Obama will cut income taxes by $1,000 for working families to offset the payroll tax they pay.
. Provide a Tax Cut for Working Families: Obama will restore fairness to the tax code and provide 150 million workers the tax relief they need. Obama will create a new "Making Work Pay" tax credit of up to $500 per person, or $1,000 per working family. The "Making Work Pay" tax credit will completely eliminate income taxes for 10 million Americans.
. Simplify Tax Filings for Middle Class Americans: Obama will dramatically simplify tax filings so that millions of Americans will be able to do their taxes in less than five minutes. Obama will ensure that the IRS uses the information it already gets from banks and employers to give taxpayers the option of pre-filled tax forms to verify, sign and return. Experts estimate that the Obama proposal will save Americans up to 200 million total hours of work and aggravation and up to $2 billion in tax preparer fees.
Trade
Obama believes that trade with foreign nations should strengthen the American economy and create more American jobs. He will stand firm against agreements that undermine our economic security.
. Fight for Fair Trade: Obama will fight for a trade policy that opens up foreign markets to support good American jobs. He will use trade agreements to spread good labor and environmental standards around the world and stand firm against agreements like the Central American Free Trade Agreement that fail to live up to those important benchmarks. Obama will also pressure the World Trade Organization to enforce trade agreements and stop countries from continuing unfair government subsidies to foreign exporters and nontariff barriers on U.S. exports.
. Amend the North American Free Trade Agreement: Obama believes that NAFTA and its potential were oversold to the American people. Obama will work with the leaders of Canada and Mexico to fix NAFTA so that it works for American workers.
. Improve Transition Assistance: To help all workers adapt to a rapidly changing economy, Obama would update the existing system of Trade Adjustment Assistance by extending it to service industries, creating flexible education accounts to help workers retrain, and providing retraining assistance for workers in sectors of the economy vulnerable to dislocation before they lose their jobs.
Technology, Innovation and Creating Jobs
Obama will encourage the deployment of the most modern communications infrastructure to reduce the costs of health care, help solve our energy crisis, create new jobs, and fuel our economic growth.
. Support Job Creation: Barack Obama believes we need to double federal funding for basic research and make the research and development tax credit permanent to help create high-paying, secure jobs. Obama will also make long-term investments in education, training, and workforce development so that Americans can leverage our strengths - our ingenuity and entrepreneurialism - to create new high-wage jobs and prosper in a world economy.
. Invest in U.S. Manufacturing: The Obama comprehensive energy independence and climate change plan will invest in America's highly-skilled manufacturing workforce and manufacturing centers to ensure that American workers have the skills and tools they need to pioneer the first wave of green technologies that will be in high demand throughout the world. Obama will also provide assistance to the domestic auto industry to ensure that new fuel-efficient vehicles are built by American workers.
. Create New Job Training Programs for Clean Technologies: The Obama plan will increase funding for federal workforce training programs and direct these programs to incorporate green technologies training, such as advanced manufacturing and weatherization training, into their efforts to help Americans find and retain stable, high-paying jobs. Obama will also create an energy-focused youth jobs program to invest in disconnected and disadvantaged youth.
. Boost the Renewable Energy Sector and Create New Jobs: The Obama plan will create new federal policies, and expand existing ones, that have been proven to create new American jobs. Obama will create a federal Renewable Portfolio Standard (RPS) that will require 25 percent of American electricity be derived from renewable sources by 2025, which has the potential to create hundreds of thousands of new jobs on its own. Obama will also extend the Production Tax Credit, a credit used successfully by American farmers and investors to increase renewable energy production and create new local jobs.
. Deploy Next-Generation Broadband: Obama believes we can get broadband to every community in America through a combination of reform of the Universal Service Fund, better use of the nation's wireless spectrum, promotion of next-generation facilities, technologies and applications, and new tax and loan incentives.
. Protect the Openness of the Internet: Obama supports the basic principle that network providers should not be allowed to charge fees to privilege the content or applications of some web sites and Internet applications over others. This principle will ensure that the new competitors, especially small or nonprofit speakers, have the same opportunity as big companies to innovate and reach large audiences.
. Invest in Rural Areas: Obama will invest in rural small businesses and fight to expand high-speed Internet access. He will improve rural schools and attract more doctors to rural areas.
Labor
Obama will strengthen the ability of workers to organize unions. He will fight for passage of the Employee Free Choice Act. Obama will ensure that his labor appointees support workers' rights and will work to ban the permanent replacement of striking workers. Obama will also increase the minimum wage and index it to inflation to ensure it rises every year.
. Ensure Freedom to Unionize: Obama believes that workers should have the freedom to choose whether to join a union without harassment or intimidation from their employers. Obama cosponsored and is strong advocate for the Employee Free Choice Act, a bipartisan effort to assure that workers can exercise their right to organize. He will continue to fight for EFCA's passage and sign it into law.
. Fight Attacks on Workers' Right to Organize: Obama has fought the Bush National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) efforts to strip workers of their right to organize. He is a cosponsor of legislation to overturn the NLRB's "Kentucky River" decisions classifying hundreds of thousands of nurses, construction, and professional workers as "supervisors" who are not protected by federal labor laws.
. Protect Striking Workers: Obama supports the right of workers to bargain collectively and strike if necessary. He will work to ban the permanent replacement of striking workers, so workers can stand up for themselves without worrying about losing their livelihoods.
. Raise the Minimum Wage: Barack Obama will raise the minimum wage, index it to inflation and increase the Earned Income Tax Credit to make sure that full-time workers earn a living wage that allows them to raise their families and pay for basic needs.
Protect Homeownership and Crack Down on Mortgage Fraud
Obama will crack down on fraudulent brokers and lenders. He will also make sure homebuyers have honest and complete information about their mortgage options, and he will give a tax credit to all middle-class homeowners.
. Create a Universal Mortgage Credit: Obama will create a 10 percent universal mortgage credit to provide homeowners who do not itemize tax relief. This credit will provide an average of $500 to 10 million homeowners, the majority of whom earn less than $50,000 per year.
. Ensure More Accountability in the Subprime Mortgage Industry: Obama has been closely monitoring the subprime mortgage situation for years, and introduced comprehensive legislation over a year ago to fight mortgage fraud and protect consumers against abusive lending practices. Obama's STOP FRAUD Act provides the first federal definition of mortgage fraud, increases funding for federal and state law enforcement programs, creates new criminal penalties for mortgage professionals found guilty of fraud, and requires industry insiders to report suspicious activity.
. Mandate Accurate Loan Disclosure: Obama will create a Homeowner Obligation Made Explicit (HOME) score, which will provide potential borrowers with a simplified, standardized borrower metric (similar to APR) for home mortgages. The HOME score will allow individuals to easily compare various mortgage products and understand the full cost of the loan.
. Create Fund to Help Homeowners Avoid Foreclosures: Obama will create a fund to help people refinance their mortgages and provide comprehensive supports to innocent homeowners. The fund will be partially paid for by Obama's increased penalties on lenders who act irresponsibly and commit fraud.
. Close Bankruptcy Loophole for Mortgage Companies: Obama will work to eliminate the provision that prevents bankruptcy courts from modify
The sad thing is that these attacks aren't about Obama they are about voters. just like this...
think I'll be taking my freak show back to vermont.
Baltogeek, you're making as much sense as your tags. Who called anyone a Nazi but you? Trying to cut off this conversation by invoking Godwin's Law is a bit desperate. I challenge you to find where I said, or Jesse said, that Obama supporters are children in need of deprogramming. I think what I have said stands on its own.
Gator, I have my reasons for supporting Obama too, and if you're interested in comparing them to yours you can read my blog.
However, those reasons and that support have nothing to do with what I think Jesse is saying--I'm not going to speak for him--and certainly have nothing to do with what I'm saying.
Your point is, I'm backing Obama from a rational perspective. Well, good for you. I'd like to think that I am too.
What does that have to do with the fact that a lot of potential voters who might be less informed than you and I about the issues are buzzing around his events with that MLM-flavored grin?
I think the hero-worship and projection onto the blank screen are dangerous, because once elected Obama will have to make hard choices. He's a politician now, not a community organizer. That means pissing someone off by not adhering to their litmus test, which he's already done for us gays BTW.
At that point, the persuaded low-info voter is going to feel deeply and personally ripped off, because this was about feelings to begin with--and someone is going to pay. So will it be black politicians? Mixed-race people? The Democratic Party? I don't know. I can't predict the future, I can only use what I know about human behavior to say this: When people feel ripped off, they get angry.
I don't think that the ability to inspire is in itself an argument against competence, seriousness or electability, and anyone who treats it as such is a clown.
bag news notes would love your photoshoped picture too. gee what was being said there? voters can't see straight?
the cult leader has won Virginia... All Hail Him!
Hubris,
I'm glad you don't use the disclaimer.
Excuse me?
I have a Ph.D. in geosciences, 25+ years of experience in all sorts of political action, and have read just about every book on politics, movements, organizations, and history that I can find time to read.
I support Obama for a number of reasons, and respect what Clinton has to say for a number of other reasons.
Those reasons have VERY LITTLE to do with his "rock star presence" primarily because I have seen the man all of three times on TV and heard hims speak more than three sentences all of ONCE.
Are you calling me a cultist? A dupe?
Fuck you.
Take that nonsensical disclaimer off your posts and shove it right up your disingenuous ass.
Have a nice day.
the littlest gator,
That is EXACTLY the way this post rubbed me the wrong way. Supporting Obama = drinking the kool aid. Supporting Hillary = pragmatic realism.
I supported Dennis Kucinich in 2004 and 2008 so I am well aware of the left's ability to smear its own. Hell, Kos would rather see a corporate empty suit represent the Ohio 10th just cause a) Kucinich told his supporters in Iowa to support Edwards and not Dean in 2004 and b) Kos doesn't like the looks and attitude of someone that really represents the Progressive wing of the party. Thus we have the introduction of petty shit to color an entire race.
And talking about who was nice to you and who wasn't is petty shit. This is one of the things that turns me off about corporate reporters; a personal rebuff or perceived slighting and they just made an enemy for life. The Obamabot characterization is not new, but using it to generalize his full range of support is just lazy reporting.
Why does Hillary have Republican-level support of black people? The corporate media says "cause black people just vote for black people". Really? The reason why people come to the blogosphere is to find a fresher perspective. Not just more of the same.
The tone of this post is like a hit piece. You should remove the disclaimer from the bottom of the post. That doesn't mean it is suddenly evil, but it should stand on its own two feet instead of having a shield to duck down behind. I would also encourage everyone else to remove their disclaimers because the entire concept behind them is purposeless, and I am guessing they engender much more vitriol back and forth than they prevent.
PhoenixRising, what post and comment did you read?
There is no other way to read that post as anything else than a poorly argued broadside against those who support Obama.
Spending numerous paragraphs basically calling everyone who supports the man empty headed sheep and them very lamely inserting a "While I won't go so far as to call the Obama organization a cult..." doesn't negate what was written.
Don't insult me and my intelligence and pretend that a salient point is being made.
As for my last comment I was making an analogy with Godwin's law and what Jesse wrote.
Call someone Hitler when you can't argue your point. Call someone a cult follower when you can't make your point.
Same kind of thing.
I have absolutely no problem with someone not taking to Obama's speaking style of possibly thinking there is no there there.
I was at that point myself until I did research and found out what he is proposing to do as president.
Jesse the writer's strike is over go write your script. Maybe you'll be able to recover yourself there.
Damn italics!
I'm seriously concerned about the democratic party and the way we're going. Obama is winning by exciting his followers and vilifying Hillary Clinton. That's not a good strategy for the Democratic party.
Every day, while Obama's Obamicam and independent support may be growing, he's losing the Hillary half of the party. We're an older group, less prone to frenzy and adoration, and more committed to hard work and results. But, we like Hillary and are sick at the arguments that she is "witchy" a "bitch", etc. Maybe he thinks that if he wins the nomination he'll be able to repair his relationship with those of us who are holding up the base of the party -- I'm not sure though. We have long memories and we've be abused and denigrated for a long, long time.
There is no other way to read that post as anything else than a poorly argued broadside against those who support Obama.
Well, I did read it another way. If it were an attack on Obama supporters instead of commentary on the Obama campaign, it would be beyond poorly argued, it just wouldn't make sense. I read it as a review of a set of events followed by a broad summary of the themes Jesse noticed.
Again, does anyone who has been to one of these rallies have a contrasting experience to Jesse's description of what he saw and thought, which is eerily similar to my own experience?
Or is this going to be a food fight thread, in which all that's proven is that you can get a lot of otherwise rational people wrapped around the axle by saying that some of us who may be Obama supporters are frightened by the aspect of his campaign that leverages and extends a politics of charisma?
Excuse me, Ann, but I would like to point out that most of the people calling Hillary names and villifying her are either a) stupid and a small minority of Obama supporters, b) NOT Democrats (they are either Repubs or Lefty-Lefts), or c) they are members of the Press...people like Matthews, Shuster, and the rest.
Obama himself has not really mentioned Hillary a whole lot, and their conflicts and crossed words have generally been about policy, choices, votes and history.
Obama's nasty remark about Clinton being a corporate lawyer while he was doing community action work may sting, they may gloss over other issues, but that is hardly "villification."
Compared to the amount of abuse that Dean supporters took, or that Kerry supporters took during the 2004 primaries, this has been a pillow fight.
I didn't call anyone a cultist RedDan.
I said specifically, if people would actually READ:
While I won't go so far as to call the Obama organization a cult, as clearly the volunteers live out in the world and have their lives, people are VERY focused on Obama and don't really know much about what he stands for (and he's not saying.) They are making a demon out of Clinton, and get very twitchy when crossed. The volunteers are putting their hopes and dreams into Obama.
This at the least, approaches a serious cult of personality, and perhaps more. It is easily up to the Werner Erhard / George W. Bush level, and without much trouble, will go further.
End quote.
If you'll note, I said that not only am I NOT calling the Obama organization a cult, I then gave specific examples as to why they are not a cult.
What I said was, they have aspects of becoming a cult of personality, and I listed two cults of personality.
I then said why I say this.
You don't like it? Well, I'm sorry you don't like it, but this is my interpretation. I was there, you weren't.
People seemed high. The people I interviewed, without exception, didn't actually know any details of Obama's plans. I pressed into them for details. What they were sure about however is that he was a better candidate than Hillary Clinton. Why? Because he was going to bring change? How? They smiled and assured me he would. That he was going to change everything.
Jesus fucking Christ.
I talked to a number of people. I wasn't picking my targets, just taking whoever was next. They were all like that. Happy, smiling, and didn't know anything.
I'm not saying anything about you RedDan. You are who you are. What I am saying is, in my assessment, there is a cult of personality developing around Obama, in much the same way one developed around Bush. He's the man. He's the one. You're for Obama, or you're against him. If you're against him, wow, you just don't get it. He's going to bring change.
As for me personally, I'll say this much... I was for Edwards. On Thursday evening as I went to meet with some local bloggers before going to the Clinton event, I planned to vote for Obama. Today, not so much. But I've switched back and forth at least 10-15 times since Edwards pulled out of the race, so in all straight-forwardness, not that I get a vote any more since I missed my caucus, who I'm for keeps changing all the time.
I don't really care who it is; I'm for the Democratic candidate. What I will say is, for about a month now, I've been attacked pretty personally by Obama folks, including some very nasty emails. I've not been attacked personally by Clinton people.
Why is it that Obama people are making personal attacks on anyone? What is it about your relationship to your candidate which lets you think it's okay to make personal attacks on anyone? Why are you so tightly identified with your candidate that you believe an article about them is an attack on you to the point I get personal emails attacking me and calling me vicious names? Or comments questioning my integrity? Or emails telling me I'm this, that or the other thing?
Even when I was posting stuff which pissed off the Hillary crowd, they never wrote me vicious stuff. Only the Obama crowd has ever done that.
That, folks, is cult of personality stuff. Really, it is. It's what you to do people who are your enemies. You attack them.
"Well Jesse, you attacked us first." No, I didn't. I wrote an article based on attending two events. I'll write more articles. Y'all have seen me attack. This wasn't an attack.
Phoenix,
The main thrust of Jesses article is that Clinton staffers were nice to him and treated him like press "should be" treated, and Obama staffers were rude.
Then it was all about how everyone was on their feet cheering a man who never mentioned any specifics, and how it felt like an EST rally.
If you don't think that is denigrating the man's supporters, then there is something wrong with your optics.
You support Clinton - FINE! She is a great candidate, she says great things about domestic policy and has a decent record on a lot of issues.
I support Obama - FINE! He also has a good record, good policies, and IMO a better vision of what needs to be done for the future.
The other reason I support him is that she voted for the war and for reauthorization. She is also surrounded by the "Clinton Team" that includes people that I find reprehensible (Carville, Begala, Penn, and etc.). And, for better or worse, she is the inheritor of the Clintonite Legacy of triangulation and (IMO) betrayal. Welfare reform, NAFTA, GATT, Telecom privatzation, and much more. Those policies set the stage for the disasters we face now, and she has shown no indication of going against those precedents.
If you throw a rock into a pack of dogs, the one who gets hit yelps the loudest.
Jesse appears to be describing people who attended two rallies. So why are people on this thread acting as though he mentioned them by name? I love the Beatles but I don't assume people are talking about me when they recall Beatlemania or crying, hysterical fans.
Also, when I go to any event or venue where I'm expected to "buy" something--how I'm treated by the "staff" means a whole hella lot.
Jesse and Paul Krugman are not the only ones creeped out by Obamamania. Google it.
Phoenix Rising, what exactly is there to be afraid of? Obama isn't asking people to do anything other than their civic duty and vote. Perhaps later, they can be inspired to do much more than that, but that's all he asks of them. Remember the same thing was said about Dean. What happened? He went to work at the DNC and spawned a whole new generation of party workers and activists. Hardly a destructive influence. And those classic speeches-the Sacramento 93 speech and his DNC 2004 speeches-were eloquent and not a shopping list of programs either.
Perhaps if more politicians were eloguent and inspirational, all of that energy and enthusiasm would be channeled into helping the community instead of filling a TV preacher's pockets. But people need inspiration, and when those whose leadership can make a difference cop out of being inspiring, then other people who can at least comfort take their place-even if its through a tv set.
Jesse,
Don't piss on my neck and tell me it's raining.
"I didn't call you a cultist, I said that his meeting felt like a cult meeting, kinda like EST" (to paraphrase).
Own your words, own their meaning, or apologize and rephrase.
Carol, Jesse, Phoenix,
You call out a huge group of people by claiming that the "movement" is a "cult of personality"...
And then when people object to being called cultists, robots, dupes and tell you to shove it, you say "See! I told you!"
Nonsense.
"The dog who gets hit is the one who yelps" ???
Right.
When did you stop beating your wife?
Obama is winning by exciting his followers and vilifying Hillary Clinton.
Huh? When did Obama 'vilify' anybody? I wish Obama would do some vilifying, I'd volunteer for his campaign if only he would prove that he can tee off on someone.
(Of course he can't ever raise his voice because the minute he does, he's the Angry Black Man you've heard so much about before.)
Obama is winning by supplying a Jungian screen on which a generation that has said in the past, 'I'm not political', can project their fantasies of what a politician should be. This is great for democracy, the Democratic Party and the country, right up until they feel misled. They will not be kind, hopeful or optimistic once Obama turns into 'just another politician'.
I was raised by RFK/McGovern hippies, and there is nothing new going on here. FDR would have come to the same spot, had he lived, without WWII bailing him out.
What's sad and disturbing to me is that so many Obama supporters who have come to that position through policy analysis react so defensively to the information, Outsiders see the Obama campaign as something that is fueled by a politics of charisma. That's important data we're going to need if he gets the nom.
Those of us who always knew that if you eat food, drink water, or fire up a furnace, politics affects you? We should be working together to look at what's going on and find solutions for keeping newcomers engaged, not holding live-fire exercises amongst ourselves.
ops...that last was to redrabbit, phoenix, and jesse, not carol...
Jesse, thank you thank you thank you. Obama supporters act exactly like Bush supporters did up until Bush's halo slipped off last week or so.
I am a DEMOCRAT, I will vote for whomever our party nominates. But I will NEVER fanatically support anyone.
And anyone who reads that statement and says "oh how sad you're not a fan" needs to look up the word fanatic.
Thanks Jesse. (another former Edwards supporter...)
not interested any more.
go vote for whomever you support, and don't expect me to read your insulting, disingenuous garbage any more.
obama supporters = bush supporters??
Jesse appears to be describing people who attended two rallies. So why are people on this thread acting as though he mentioned them by name?
From the post:
I've been around cults, religions, and high-dominance authoritarian institutions much of my life. While I won't go so far as to call the Obama organization a cult, as clearly the volunteers live out in the world and have their lives, people are VERY focused on Obama and don't really know much about what he stands for (and he's not saying.) They are making a demon out of Clinton, and get very twitchy when crossed. The volunteers are putting their hopes and dreams into Obama.
This at the least, approaches a serious cult of personality, and perhaps more. It is easily up to the Werner Erhard / George W. Bush level, and without much trouble, will go further.
I volunteered for Obama so I guess I:
1. Am obsessed, oh I'm sorry VERY focused - which is the same damn thing but without the balls to come out and say it - with Obama.
2. Don't know what he stands for.
3. Have nothing better to do than demonize Clinton.
4. Pouring my little dreams into this one man.
5. Am setting myself up to be possibly lead around by the nose by Obama who may or may not be as evil as George W. Bush to do implied horrible things I suppose.
Who ever knew just calling people to get out and vote could cause so much trouble.
RedDan, its not you I'm criticizing.
Its the inability to take constructive criticism without feeling personally attacked that was absolutely SYMBOLIC of the Bush years.
Dan, you're reading pretty fast there.
Then it was all about how everyone was on their feet cheering a man who never mentioned any specifics, and how it felt like an EST rally.
If you don't think that is denigrating the man's supporters, then there is something wrong with your optics.
You support Clinton - FINE! She is a great candidate, she says great things about domestic policy and has a decent record on a lot of issues.
I don't support Clinton.
I don't think it's denigrating anyone to describe what you saw and heard. It's reporting and commentary.
I'm starting to think that the stereotypes about Obama supporters may not be entirely off the mark. What a symphony of complaints about 1200 words that were specifically about the author's observations, feelings and reactions!
You all keep this up as late as you have the energy to, but I'm out for the night. Good luck with the whole 'catching more flies with a Bug Zapper than honey' persuasion technique, though.
I'm going to continue using Obama's positions on the issues, and substantive experience, as my tools because I find they work a bit better.
tamnes, that begs the assumption that it was constructive criticism and not a personal and emotional response.
I had a totally different experience, with both campaigns, but that kind of anecdotal evidence is not a reason to or not to vote for someone.
what saddens me is that the gnb didn't have to go here. it didn't have to be like this. now it is ugly and mean on all sides.
bummer
:-(
lets see hillarys base is low info voters. obama base is educated high info voters...ya i guess me and kos are cultests....i will let dirfty know hes in the same group....jesse drop the disclamer lieing dosn't become you
Thanks for a great article Jesse. I've seen Obama speech only on TV, never been to the rally. I found myself keep nodding in agreement with everything he said, imagine the intensity at the rally. After I snapped myself out of it, all I could hear is change bla blal bla we can do it bla bla bla, change bla bla bla unite bla bla bla. And in this time of trouble, that is just too much for me to swallow.
The deciding factor for me is the proposal of "green collar job" from Clinton. It's the most progressive proposal put on the table by any candidate. The proposal offers to tackle environmental problem, create new job, and improve technology competitiveness at the same time. To me it shows that Clinton really understand the problem and want to fix it at its core. She also projects this character in other proposals, i.e universal healthcare, immigration reform. All her proposals aim to tackle the issues at the root of the problems. And that's what I like. No patch up.!
You should remove the disclaimer at the bottom Jesse
Thank you Hubris Sonic. Thank You
http://www.brownsugar28.blogspot.com
Jesse Wendel - Hillary supporter.
Sorry mate........... it's been obvious for lo these many weeks.
Now Jesse... Bringing up substance fine. Stating reasons to support (or NOT support) one candidate or the other... fine.
Not taking a minute to read -- or listen to specific, immediate, plans of action that can be enacted practically immediately -- and then taking that stance to tear down a strawman -- SHAME.
Aside from some VERY low key statements from Obama regarding Clinton, prefaced by stating her strengths and qualifications -- AND pledging his support to the eventual nominee, I'm not sure what invective you've been listening to.
As YOU said: Specifics, please. Or STFU.
Oh yeah, FUCK THE FUCKING YANKEES
RedDan,
Fuck you, too.
PhoenixRising and tamens are engaging in what might be called an intervention. You support Obama because of his stands on the issues, and not because you're projecting your hopes and dreams onto him? Good for you! Now, if that's the case, why feel so defensive?
As a Clinton supporter, I don't feel personally affronted when people call her a triangulating, DLC warmonger. Why do so many Obama supporters feel insulted when someone observes that his rallies feel like motivational speeches at Amway conventions?
Obama supporters seriously need to ask themselves this. Don't push the question away. Examine your assumptions and motivations.
This is important, because it's not really about Obama and Clinton. As PhoenixRising notes, this is about keeping people engaged with the political process. What will happen to people who become disillusioned with Obama, as any follower of any politician inevitably is? I worry that these people will get disgusted, scream that all politicians are scum, and eschew from political engagement ever again.
Everyone who supports Clinton have been disappointed by her. Still, they work on her behalf. They remain engaged politically. They want an effective politician, not a savior.
The responses on this thread certainly reinforce the post's points.
I was an Edwards supporter and the cultish aspects, the "tell us how you came to Obama" rhetoric, the evangelical language, it all makes me very uncomfortable. I don't get it, I don't connect to it in an emotional way and certainly not in a rational way.
But it's very hard to bring this up because of the typical response, as illustrated above.
If I argue on the issues, for example, Obama's three neo-liberal economic advisors, use of right wing talking points on social security and weakness on environmental issues (yes, the platform looks good now but originally it had corn based ethanol, liquid coal, etc., so I question the depth of commitment), I am told that I obviously don't understand what he really means.
I voted for Clinton. I still have problems with her and with some of her positions. I freely admit this and am happy to discuss it. I made the best choice I could.
Frankly I do not see the same kind of willingness to consider Obama objectively among many (not all) of his supporters, and it really worries me.
Check out this very different experience, also in Seattle.
I guess it's time for you to STFU. 
"The responses on this thread certainly reinforce the post's points."
I don't see that. I see people being offended by being patronized? and characterized as cult follwers.
but anyway, let's talk about the fisa bill and the returns coming in now.
Oh and for the recored let me stae taht I hate hillary because she is hillary clinton. it has nothign to do with obama...had edwards, or dean, or gravle, or dodd, or clark been the otehr democrat in the race i would still hate hillary. if hillary was corinated after iowa I would not be voteing in november...its compleatly seprate from my desire to see obama president.
It's a campaign rally. You're supposed to pump-up the already converted. Why would he get into policy specifics? It's wasn't a town hall.
You sound like people in the mainstream media. Do you know why the press was so favorable to George Bush in 2000 and 2004? Because he was nice to them.
I think the only thing that is dangerous here is that you might be turning into a fawning mindless mainstream media robot.
Plus, I'm not a fcuking cultist. Obama's rubbish seems marginally more plausible in this day and age than Clinton's '90's rubbish. Marginally!
Haven't been to an Obama event, and I don't intend to. Cheering crowds/Triumph of the Will.......... not my thing.
Jesse you should be ashamed of yourself. I can't believe...well that's a lie, I can believe you wrote such drible.
Sigh.
You should ban yourself from writing political posts for awhile or at the very least take the disclaimers off. It's so disingenuous.
http://www.brownsugar28.blogspot.com
Heres my final thought on this before I go off in search of dinner.
I was vilified for not understanding the Bush love. I will not tolerate or stand by in silence when I am vilified or told to FUCK OFF for not being in love with a politician.
Honestly, I don't care who the nominee is, but I sure the fuck care being marginalized AGAIN.
Unlike most Obama people, I expect to be dissapointed. You read that right, I expect that he won't live up to 100% of my dreams and aspirations to the future of this country. No one person can anyway.
If I am voting against Clinton it's not against her it's the entire machine, it's the reign of McAuliffe/Gruenwald/Carville, etc. and of course Bill. I just don't want a 90s rehash all over again.
I don't want to hear about her hair and wardrobe choices, I don't even want to hear about how she stays hydrated (did anyone watch that horrible interview that Couric did on 60 Minutes? ). I want HRC to live her full potential as the next Teddy Kennedy --- a powerful kingmaker within the Senate. We need more of those.
I think you all (or most of you) need to cool down a bit.
The original post was way too strong about how vague Obama's positions are. That was not just an observation, it was a falsifiable assertion, and it looks like most people think it's false.
We don't need to respond with "oh so obviously I'm a cultist too", either. You don't have to assume it applies to you.
For what it's worth, I think the "cult" impression is going to be much less of an issue for less-involved voters who aren't exposed to the language of the campaigns so much.
And I think most people are a lot more tolerant of expressing emotion than the denizens of the intertubes.
All of this is hilarious as I hear that Obama is beating Senator Clinton by double digits in tonight's caucuses and primaries.
As far as Lene Riefenstahl and Triumph of the Will... it is about time that progressives and liberals benefit from a little drama and pomp instead of the usual suspects. I'm 56 and for the first time in a long time I am hopeful that a President Obama will help bring about a better America. The good America I know exists in our citizens.
I was vilified for being a howard dean support. we were told we were all young, idealistic, and also that it was a cult of personality, that we were a liberal freak show. and this was by the msm and people in our own party. and I won't be marginalized again either.
so we agree
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.
Your statement about how the Obama people didn't pander to you as "press" and Hillary's did rather points out the bedrock of "the difference" between them.
If you can't tell the difference between someone who expects Americans to crown her based solely on who she is, and someone who actually wants a shot at actual governing of a nation and who truly understands grass roots, then ..... well I guess that says more about you then either one of them.... or any of us.
And its so very very funneh that this "disclaimer" comes out only after months and months of the backdoor promotion of hillary..... just like this fauxist post. It IS a typical rovarian tactic though.
Oh yeah, where's yer "Support The Candidate" loyalty oath now?
Here are two articles which support precisely the claim I'm making about the Obama operation:
Obama Basic Training
Stories and Numbers - a Closer Look at Camp Obama
I'm not saying I don't ever make mistakes in interpretations of mood. Or make ungrounded assessments. Everyone makes mistakes. But I stand by my assessment here.
The Obama campaign is intentionally not talking policy; they're bringing people in with emotion and story.
What they're doing is classic emotional-response sales technique, taught at est (now Landmark Education), taught at Lifespring, taught at Mind Dynamics.
They're teaching it to their staff and volunteer leaders in weekend seminars. Congratulations folks. Go get 'em.
Oh... and the littlest gator -- I wasn't one of the people vilifying you for your Howard Dean obsession. I was all for Dean. What does that have to do with today?
Myrtle June -- what in the hell are you talking about? I already said I don't see an enormous difference between the two candidates on the issues, and I'll support whichever one wins the nomination. I said it in the first paragraph of my post. Hello?
Myrtle June, let me get this straight.
You acknowledge that Clinton's campaign staff treated Jesse well. Then you say that the courteous treatment of Jesse is evidence that Clinton "expects Americans to crown her based solely on who she is."
This is confusing to me, because I would expect someone who "expects Americans to crown her head based solely on who she is" to treat people arrogantly.
Can you explain why the kind treatment of Jesse is considered arrogant?
Also, you imply that Obama "actually wants a shot at actual governing of a nation" and Clinton doesn't. I thought Clinton had expressed interest in governing the nation. Could you please explain what you mean?
well I agree with this part for sure...
The idea behind the personal narratives is to reclaim "values" politics from the Republican Party, said Marshall Ganz, a one-time labor organizer for Cesar Chavez and the United Farm Workers who developed "Camp Obama" training sessions for volunteers.
When people tell their stories of how they made choices and what motivates them, they communicate their values, Ganz said in an interview.
"Values are not just concepts, they're feelings," Ganz said. "That's what dropped out of Democratic politics sometime in the '70s or '80s."
Jesse, a political campaign is teaching workers how to persuade voters using professional techniques? I'm shocked I tell you shocked. Of course we know that Senator Clinton's workers are not being taught structured linguistics or talking points tailored to the voters.
That wily Obama is using volunteers and training them to persuade... shocked at the vileness of these EST clone cult memebers.
(What a laugh... the first man to stand up and say Americans need to take charge of the country to change it for the better in a long time and he is attacked for his common everyday politics methods.)
and also for empowering people to tell their own stories... the horror.
Jesse, it's just your Body Thetans making your Reactive Mind spout Suppressive and Glib posts. You need to get yourself E-Metered, maybe even a Disconnection Rundown, and you can be a Clear, too!
Seriously, if you get driven out for blasphemy against the Hypnobama, you could always try Shakesville.
I am so disappointed in this post, Jesse, and yet I read it with a sense of sad nostalgia. I feel as if my belief in and respect for and political affection for Gov. Dean is similar to what the folks who are at those Obama rallies are feeling. I know that when we Dean people were hit with the 'cult' meme, we found it disingenuous, cynical, and, to be quite frank, pretty darn dumb if you want to change America for the better.
Why?
Because of that experience with Howard Dean (the end of which broke my heart), because the guy I believed in is a person of solid character, he urged us all to keep fighting, and many, many of us took it seriously. Even with my aforementioned heart condition, I am still involved in politics: I ran for Party office and served for 2 terms, when I had money I gave it, when I needed to rally the troops I did it, all in honor of what was called a 'cult' by folks who were frightened by the spectacle of honest hope, and joy, into being patronizing and disdainful.
We were called a cult: not just by idiots like the Club for Growth. But by progressives, Democrats, liberals, who didn't understand that to turn an apathetic American into a 'fighting liberal', sometimes it takes a movement.
Sometimes, a movement is exactly what's needed to move America forward.
Are there people who don't understand that? I think Sen. Clinton is one of them, hence her completely-missing-the-point comment about the Civil Rights Movement. Here's what she said: "Dr King’s dream began to be realised when President Lyndon Johnson passed the Civil Rights Act of 1964. It took a president to get it done.”
What she misses is that the Act had a foundation and that foundation was the Movement - the impetus of the Movement created the common ground that led to the legislation (which was politically courageous, no doubt). Gov. Dean's group of 'cultists' got him into a position where he could effect substantial, pragmatic change with the 50 State Strategy - and help move America forward, starting with the Democratic Party (the work isn't done, clearly). That smaller movement is exceeded by the larger movement that Barack Obama inspires, in lots of people of lots of ages, who, like me, think of themselves as adults, capable of feeling joy and hope at the same time that we get down to the business of pragmatically organizing and pragmatically campaigning, all with the reality-based goal of creating a better America.
Both candidates have similar positions on various issues. However, I suspect that many Americans aren't focused as much on issues as on a basic and very fair question: "who is this person and what is the world she/he is leading us to?" If Sen. Clinton is not inspiring a movement that competes favorably with Sen. Obama's, I would advise her to look at her own view of the world and the future to see if perhaps that is the source of the problem.
It might be prudent for her supporters to do the same.
So, the Clinton campaign gives you VIP treatment, the Obama campaign doesn't even after you tell them you're a "national blogger" and you're not going to put up with that crap.
Next, you evaluate their entire policy positions based on stump speeches.
Congratulations, Jesse. You're well on your way to being another beltway pundit douchebag. Take a bow.
This blog is getting far away from what Steve was doing. Can anyone ever, ever imagine Steve Fucking Gillard whining because a campaign treated him like this?
I love LM's work. I really like Sara and Hubris. But I'm done with this blog for a while.
Jesse Wendel,
As an former Edwards supporter you must've been struck as I was in the very superficial nature of his 2004 stump speech. It was all about his personal story. And it became dry and stale in a very "born in a log cabin" sort of way.
I was not a supporter of Barack Obama's in the Illinois Senate primary and it took a lot of people dropping out for him to earn my vote last Tuesday. Having said that I was concerned earlier and I am still a bit concerned about people projecting onto Barack their own hopes and dreams. But I don't subscribe to the fact that the ignorance of his supporters at that function you were at reflects the broad base of his support.
You said there were 20,000+ at the Obama event and 3,000 at the Clinton event. Are you willing to surmise that there existed such a policy gap between the two that the Clinton supporters were more informed?
I am in fact listening to Clinton now and her husband is a much more talented speaker. Are we to penalize Senator Obama for being an inspiring speaker and deride him as a cult leader? He has policy statements, he has over 3 years of voting in the US Senate, so don't tout his stump speech as the new coming of Dear Leader.
Your notes on both of these conventions the first time around didn't reflect the level of pointed criticism that this post does. I have to wonder why you went back and revised yourself after the fact.
I guess the real question is: Are you prepared to support and/or vote for the cult leader if he is the nominee in the general election?
Very eloquent, rock star vibes, very cool, lots of celebrity friends, represents the party of the left, much better than his predecessor, proponent of getting past the bickering on critical issues and taking a third way.
I am of course talking about Tony Blair.
I haven't been here since shortly after the GNB picked up the torch, and it's been extremely interesting to see this thread go down.
Doc is offering something constructive in his critique: Obama needs to inoculate many of his supporters against what would otherwise look like betrayal. And no, I'm not talking about the hyper-informed News Blog thread dwellers.
It is not just Jesse, the alleged Clintonite, who sees this. Obama supporters openly talk about the creepiness of Obamaphilia.
My own early observation was that Obama was able to uncork the hopes and dreams of new voters like another politican: Bill Clinton. The line etched into my memory about Bill was that he was an empty vessel into which all kinds of people could pour their hopes and dreams. People from most left-leaning demographics could imagine that Clinton was the leader they had been praying for. And a lot of them felt betrayed. Some of those betrayed people are helping to turn things full circle and make Obama the antidote to Clintonite disappointment. Meet the new boss....
And there are too many opposing forces in Obama's coalition. Those forces might cooperate through a honeymoon, but sooner or later someone is going to have to compromise and sacrifice. Hope(tm) and dreams will be dashed.
Don't blame Jesse. He's only doing what Steve would do and be honest, even if - tho' it's not clear - he might be shining the light on another candidate.
And on Steve: does anyone suspect like I do that he would be trying to cut through the hype? It seems to me that's what he spent his career on.
Peace, all.
I can't speak for Jesse, but yes, I will vote for the Hypnobama in November if he is nominated.
Why? Because the alternative, in the real world, to Obama is not some ideal progressive-populist policy wonk, but McCain or some other Elephascist. The Elephascist Party is also a cult, and an organized crime syndicate to boot.
I'll take the benign cult leader over the malignant cult leader, if those are my only two choices.
Jesse...my god, I have to agree with the people above. The links cited above don't support your conclusion at all!
It's simply a professional get out the vote effort. You train people to not piss people off, you don't take risk on the volunteers knowing what the canidate is for, and the initiative is entirely left to the volunteer as to what he or she is best able to communicate.
Look, jesse, the key foundation of what a cult *is*, is the manipulation of the target's distress. If you wanna prove that people have cultish behavior, you need to point with some authority that people are acting to fulfill some need, and describ what the unmet needs are that Obama is filling, besides getting a much better leader than the one we have now!
SteveK at 6:31--Bravo!
There goes Maryland. 3-3 for cult leader. Better call it a night.
A black guy will never get to become the nazi leader of America. Everyone take a chill pill and reflect on CHANGE.
Hypnobama out!(Thanks to whoever coined that in the comments)
Three quarters will buy me a soda here at the Ministry of Silly Walks.
That is what you meant by "reflect on change", isn't it?
Jeez, y'all are thin-skinned.
I was a Dean supporter last time around, and the cult comments didn't bother me, because they were true! I couldn't stand going to the campaign blog, because it made my teeth hurt. Those people were embarassing.
And Christ, the way some of you talk about Sen. Clinton makes you sound like Freepers.
So that it doesn't get lost in the shuffle, even by my own readers...
1. I didn't call Obama or Obama supporters a cult or cult followers. I said the campaign was in danger of becoming of a cult of personality.
Those are two very different things.
2. I said in the very first paragraph of my post, I will vote for whomever is the Democratic nominee come November. Count on it.
It's clear to me no matter what I say, it isn't making any difference. The pro-Obama camp is going to defend their guy, the pro-Hillary camp is going to defend what I said, and there simply isn't a meeting of the minds here.
All I'm doing is writing an article with the best interpretation of what is going on I have.
Agree, disagree, that's fine. But if you're sitting there believing I'm trying to attack your candidate, or thinking you've been personally attacked, well, that's kind of my point. Why do you think that? How is it you've become so personally identified with a candidate that an article written in good faith, feels like a personal attack?
I wasn't attacking you. I didn't have you in mind. You weren't in the Key Arena last Thursday (I don't think.) And yeah, some of you I thought about when I thought of some of the nasty comments from Obama people that have been posted, but I didn't think of any of you specifically. This is a general article, not a specific one. So why are people taking it personally?
Some one explain that to me please, without saying that I called you cult members (I didn't) or that I offended all Obama people (if you're offended, it's you who are offended, I didn't offend you) just what is getting under your skin so much. Thanks. Without calling me names, if you would.
okay, sure...
reread your own damned post again.
remember these words?
THAT MEANS, people are free to, and they damn well are, projecting onto Obama all their hopes and dreams for a better future. He is their mother, their father, their lover, confessor, their priest, their shining city on a hill.
or your very last phrase, which definitly teed me off...
This at the least, approaches a serious cult of personality, and perhaps more. It is easily up to the Werner Erhard / George W. Bush level, and without much trouble, will go further.
No proper democratic party member wants be part of the same phrase as Dubya...
shah8 -
A) That's useful. Thank you.
B) Next question.
I'm asking seriously now. I don't mean this as a slap...
And can't you get enough distance from the article... or perhaps, was there something about the way in which the article was written which made it more difficult for you ...to get sufficient distance to get that the intent wasn't personal at all, but was pointing at what I'm saw as a phenomena to be opened up and talked about?
How could it have been said to make it possible for it to have been talked about? Without watering down the assessment significantly? (Let us not have this be a critique of how I write, please.)
Open question to everyone, not just shah8.
Jesse, a major point is the tone of the article. You disrespected the amount of time and effort I have taken to decide to support Obama.
I am a serious person who looked at all the candidates and while I was intrigued early by Obama examined Edwards very seriously and came to terms with Senator Clintons candidacy. I'm a Democrat who will vote for the nominee.
This article infers that my decision was blind and cult like. That is why I made the Futurama reference to the Hypnotoad. You were seemingly accusing me of wearing the toad hat when in fact after much research I made a serious decision.
Oh and the "I'm a national blogger, treat me right" came off more than a little... unfortunate. Obama surrounded you with amateur campaign workers while Senator Clinton to use a Wonkette term had you shit on by professionals... and you bought it. Your good man but you had a bad night and wrote about it.
Amuseinc:
To counter, I thought Jesse was clear that he was talking about the crowd, not every Obama supporter. Like I linked upthread, Obama voters talk about the "creepy" fawning among many supporters.
Jesse, I knew the ref to the GWB cult of personality was going to cause blowback, and I'd be surprised if you didn't know that too.
Whether it's accurate is a whole 'nother enchilada with green sauce...but it was not phrased to lead to understanding.
Was that a critique of your writing? Oops.
If you cannot percieve my first answer as something that directly answers your point about not actually saying Obama's people are cultish, then I can't help you.
At some point, jesse, you're just going to have to fess up that this was an assholish and whiney essay. Claiming that you didn't really mean what you just wrote has all of the vibe of "It was a joke, honest...You're just being hysterical"
Slipping quietly into the room - gagging silently behind a black gloved hand at the cloying, sickly sweet stench of pseudointellectual, obfuscatory balderdash pervading the area - skulking about - slithering along the baseboard and listening in on the discussion at hand - Captain Komodo, undercover agent for the C.R.S.R.A.C.C.F.J.O.W.W.T (Christo-Rovian Super-Rightists Anti-Cultist Crusaders For Jebus On Whole Wheat Toast). He stops in the far corner of the room and begins sibilantly whispering into a hidden minimic, secreted beneath the "I did Obama's Mama" campaign button pinned to his right jacket lapel:
"C.K reporting in Sir."
"K.R. listenin' in - what news?!?"
"Don't sweat it Sir. These monkeys are still shakin' their own trees - no wonder we were able to run the snakefoot hoodoo on them for the past two POTUS elections. Let 'em keep goin' like this and they'll wake up 24 after E-day, November to come, with the Straight Talk XXXpress jammed up their asses and Ol' Johnny Mac whisperin' gangsta pimp haiku about bombin' Iran up in their earholes. Democrats - ya gotta love 'em!"
"I do C.K. - believe me - I do!! K.R. - over & out!"
Okay Amuseinc, I got that one.
I agree with about the first half of it. My question to you is the same one from just above.
How could I have said it so you would have engaged -- I'm not asking about writing styles now -- with it as something to look at, not as an attack on you?
The part about the national blogger bit; I intentionally didn't write about all of it, specifically because I hate process stories. In retrospect, I should have either written all of it or none of it.
What I was trying to convey, was the mood of the thing, the arrogance of the campaign, their lack of a sense of knowing who people are (not that I give a damn if anyone knows who I am personally.) I'm talking about not respecting anyone but the traveling press and shitting all over the local press. Their lack of organization which left the press -- on whom good stories depend, hopefully not that anyone is going to write a crappy story based on bad treatment or write a good story based on being sucked up to, but it's easy enough to see how it can happen; LM and I were talking about it yesterday -- standing out in 40 degree temps with the wind down on us. I can't stand that long; that's why I have a cane to begin with. But none of that mattered, and they didn't even come out to tell us oh, sorry, we're leaving you out here and we'll be back to you soon. They just left us stuck out there.
Same thing on the convention floor. They were rude as hell to people, changing seat assignments, moving people around, giving orders in a "do what I tell you to do" voice, 20 year old kids telling 40 and 50 year old senior reporters what to do. It was flat out rude. And yeah, I stepped up and got tough about it. For me and the guy sitting next to me, a local reporter who had a two year-old little girl with him. We kept our seats and didn't get pushed away.
Then the traveling press showed up and I was left sitting there with NBC and one of the other networks directly behind me, and (I think) Reuters to my left. Other faces I recognized were walking around. The Obama people suddenly got very, very polite. So it wasn't that they couldn't. It was that they wouldn't.
The one exception was one of the Obama traveling forward advance people. He was polite to me from the jump.
My point is, there's no reason they couldn't have been polite and nice all along. The press isn't hard to get along with. But they moved us around and ordered people like cattle. Should I have put all that into my story?
Maybe. But then it would have been a different story. Should I have left it out entirely? Maybe. But then it wouldn't have had enough of the flavor of comparison I was going for.
I don't know where to draw the line, but I do appreciate you pointing out what didn't work for you.
shah8, I ask this with respect for your thoughtful views: What is the appropriate tone to take when discussing the phenom and opening a conversation about it?
It's not all in Jesse's head, or mine, or someone else who will be reduced to 'disgruntled Clinton supporter' even if he's nothing of the kind. It's a thing and it needs to be brought into the open by the good guys before the bad guys take advantage of our silence.
Oh, how they will.
Jesse, I am an Edwards supporter and I have really tried to understand the Obama phenomenon. I appreciate your post in describing some of the same things that I see. I don't so much see est and Werner Erhard, in that the est training focused on teaching personal responsibility. The tactics used to try to have people continue taking courses were then later developed and used by multi-level marketing like Amway. I see the selling of Obama more in that light. He is the perfect answer for our political ills. And the reaction in the threads are similar to those I experience in conversation. The anger when one does not agree is absolutely puzzling and disconcerting to me.
I will vote for the Democratic nominee but I fear that McCain will win. Or even if Obama wins the progressive wing of the party has been further marginalized. I hope I am wrong but I really think the msm has won again.
the mood of the thing, the arrogance of the campaign, their lack of a sense of knowing who people are (not that I give a damn if anyone knows who I am personally.) I'm talking about not respecting anyone but the traveling press and shitting all over the local press.
I'm definitely nobody, although I was sitting in the press section typing into a laptop. And they treated the nobodies with more contempt, if possible.
Not impressive, but also not the story. The story was a large group of skewed-young hopemongers who didn't know a thing on their way in and left in the same condition.
wow shah8,
I asked you for you to give serious feedback, and what I get is, I'm whining and taking back what I said?
Bite me.
I'm not taking back anything.
What I was asking is, instead of flying off the handle and reacting, to try and see what would have served you better so you could have not been so triggered.
I'm a writer. My job is to communicate. I'm trying to communicate something here, specifically that a bunch of y'all are so closely identified with your candidate, I can't even have a conversation with you about how closely identified with your candidate, without y'all getting all crazy on me.
That's what I call either a cult of personality, or damn near.
That's what I said in the article, and that's what I'm still saying.
Now tell me how I could have said that better, so you wouldn't get all crazy?
Or shut the hell up. Same with the rest of you.
Good post and great summary. I had a friend who was turned away from the Obama event in Seattle because it was full.
While I was an Edwards supporter, I'm now an Obama supporter largely because I don't want to strengthen another political dynasty. I'd happily vote for Hillary though if she wins and from what I know, I like her universal health care proposal better than Obama's.
I do get the sense that Obama supporters are caught up in a moment. I hope he delivers if elected but it's difficult to tell what he'll do because he's still so green.
I suppose if they took care of bloggers like yourself, they might get even more support since you're out spreading the word but I actually like the fact that they didn't try to win you over by pampering you. I mean no offense, but it seems kind of petty.
"This would be a great time in the world for some man to come along that knew something."
Will Roger's Daily Telegrams : The Hoover Years, 1929-1931 (197
I agree with Will Rogers a lot these days.
______________________
Were they rude or just incompetent? Was it intentional in trying to create a second class of local media or stupidity written large as 20 somethings ordered people around.
I have always felt that one should look for stupidity in things before evil. Your article inferred that the arrogance came from the top... I don't think so. I think like the human race, stupidity is scattered throughout the loaf like raisins.
____________
You've got to be optimist to be a Democrat, and you've got to be a humorist to stay one.
Will Rogers Good Gulf radio show (24 June 1934)
Myrtle June, let me get this straight.
You acknowledge that Clinton's campaign staff treated Jesse well. Then you say that the courteous treatment of Jesse is evidence that Clinton "expects Americans to crown her based solely on who she is."
YEP, that's what I said.
This is confusing to me, because I would expect someone who "expects Americans to crown her head based solely on who she is" to treat people arrogantly.
Well, no. People who expect to special treatment, a coronation for instance, naturally would not treat another of the same ilk, "the press", in any other than a pandering way because they know that people with microphones, "the press", are who created the entire "hillary is winning" bullshit outta the box based on nothing but spin. So this whole way of life, ass kissin ass and around again, is a whole way one lives based on ego feeding only. If I want you to feed my ego, coronation, I must feed your, "the press'" ego to get it. See?
Can you explain why the kind treatment of Jesse is considered arrogant?
Errr.... you characterized it as "arrogant" not me.
Also, you imply that Obama "actually wants a shot at actual governing of a nation" and Clinton doesn't.
I actually said that, I didn't "imply". I said it. It my view from the 52yo fighting liberal women's seats. Popcorn?
I thought Clinton had expressed interest in governing the nation. Could you please explain what you mean?
Yes, I can.
Clinton's own words "I'm in to win" and her statement in a couple of debates that having a woman for President....as "change enough". That's not intending to do anything but be the first woman president. Then back to business as usual... which is how we got to this place.
Obama, so far as I have heard, has not once, that I know of, hung his appeal on being the first black president. The other "slicers and dicers" have though. He has not once targeted any one group other than this Human Beings/World Citizens/Americans. Americans as one common purpose. All together. He is establishing leadership with this. He understands community organizing grass roots up. That's government.
He want's to govern/lead all of this country, she wants the crown to preside over her bush/clinton IV empire.
The Obama camp failed to feed Jesse's ego, The Clintons' camp fed it well so they get nod. Jesse fails to recognize the difference between "cult" and "movement".
Always happy to help, Q.
(... but not to worry.... the sooooooper delgates will swoop in and save the fair empress to ride again on her pretty pony. The End.)
Jesse, see my above answer to your question. And no I won't shut the fuck up
Do we really need to visit the "if you didn't vote, you don't get a say" stick? I didn't think so.
Dennis Kucinich had that best healthcare plan, John Edwards had the second best one. Now Dennis is fighting for his political survival against a corporate-backed empty suit candidate in a contested primary(with about 4 others), no doubt helped along by the Democratic leadership in Congress, and Edwards will go back to his big new house and contemplate what his next step is.
Needless to say I didn't exactly get what I wanted out of the primary process. But c'mon Jesse...she voted for the damn war. She ain't going to talk about that in the stump speech. Nor her not showing up today to vote against the FISA bill that says to US telcos "For having violated every single American's rights and copied every single electronic transmission over your wire for a year and given it to the NSA, here is your cookie."
I had to swallow hard and vote for Kerry in 2004 when he was promoting some version of a Surge! after having voted for the war. God damned if I have to swallow a lot harder to vote for Hillary of Iraq, Kyl-Lieberman and now FISA fame.
Cmon HypnObama! Blow her out of the water!
Hey, PhoenixRising...I actually did talk about this over at the agonist, actually, I was led here from a link provided by Ian.
From my perspective, I think it's a whole lot more that people just have issues with social movements. Obama is a veteran of various low level mass movements in the past, and he's using what he knows. Also, he had huge name recognition issues, which was best mitigated with a social movement. TV ads are great for getting a name and a face out there. It isn't so great for getting a sense of the person out there. That can take other people to help push it out into the masses and coopting them. So Obama is definitly *using* people.
As far as *talking* about that use, I think the best thing to be said is what are the goals? Are those goals being met for the people being used? How is the cynicism level of the *campaign*, not the person percieving it...
Like I said before, a cult is something that *preys* on people. It's also a social movement. Going around talking about people as if they are cult-members or as if they are "cultish" is more or less akin to describing someone who loves children as pedophiles. It would be insulting if someone were to go around accusing devoted child care agents or advocates as being pedophiles, even though they claim great love and are rabid about children's issues.
Being irrationally supportive of people or agendas is not a crime, nor is it unhealthy. If you think that a movement is wrong or is liable to be dissappointed or the people are just being used, then you need to describe the dynamics of the situation. What is the Obama campaign consuming from it's supporters? Are the supporters informed correctly about the purposes of involvment? Are the supporters being adequately rewarded, psychologically or materially for their involvement? Is there any sign of manipulation towards a third party/agenda? That sort of thing.
Off-handedly talking about how you don't understand what's going on, and how vacuous (and cultish) the canidate sounds like (in a pep rally, of all things!), is more or less the equivalent of some grumpy older guy screaming at the kids to get off his lawn!
Well, jesse, I've spent alot of the past few days over at Pandagon and related sites on the topic of "Nice Guys".
One of those big signs of NiceGuyism is the reaction they give after being rejected and consequent injury to that sense of entitlement. The whole sour grapes mode with plenty of nastiness to the people who rejected you. That "My perspective is better than yours." attitude.
You haven't exactly been addressing anything I actually said. And I reserve the right to be harsh at people I percieve to be self-entitled assholes (which you most assuredly came off as).
You wanna harsh someone's buzz, sure, but don't think you're being wise, or nice, for doing it. And certain expect the whole "Is this guy a concern troll?" attitude.
"Methinks Obama supporters doth protest too much!"
Congratulations Jesse! I liked the piece. They were your observations. What part of that don't people understand? If that's not your experience, it doesn't invalidate either. Each of us experiences life and the people in it through our own filter. It's how people survive. Early on in my marriage, my husband and I hit the wall on this issue when I told him a man living next door with a neighbor gave me the creeps. Hubby went batshit, over the remark because he, man-to-man, thought the dude was cool and that I was just coming down on a brother. That's the kind of male bullshit that is maddening. So when I threw a NY Post in his lap many months later with a lead story about a woman running naked down the street escaping from a rapist who had held her captive, and said rapist turned out to be the creep from next door, well - let's just say my new hubby developed a newfound respect for my judgement.
No one can tell me WHAT to think. If my gut tells me something and yours is silent, then fuck the fuck off. I'm all about protecting myself based on my instinct and experience. I'm not trying to take that away from anyone, so you'll get a fight if you try to take that away from me.
Listen up: for several months I have stated the following: I am voting for the Democratic nominee no matter who it is." Because I made it clear that I was a Hillary supporter, fuck a disclaimer, she's my choice, every Obama supporter on this blog got a mothafucking nosebleed like they are now. It didn't matter that Jesse said HE VOTED FOR OBAMA. If you ain't down with the Obama love then you're shit. And you all don't see a problem? Maybe that's the problem.
Last time I checked this was a democracy, a key feature of which is choice. Sorry if that fact alone is ALL the inspiration I need.
Fuck the rest of you needy people. I make it just fine on my own juice by taking responsibility to make my life meaningful.
There's not a politician on the face of the earth that's clean! So get over yourselves! Obama ain't the greatest, he's just the latest! And that impressive laundry list of policy is going to have to be worked out with Congress and within the guidelines of the Constitution. So much for 'change.'
What saddens me is that not only on this site but the various places I have visited, it's seems to be ALWAYS the Obama people who are the most offensive if you are not on board. Answer this question those of you who are celebrating his victories tonight: What part of I will be voting for him in November don't you people understand?
I'm starting to fear that not only don't you get that, you don't care about my vote if I'm not with you heart and soul. That's the bone chilling cult aspect that some of us are talking about. And you all need to seriously deal with that.
Now how many people like me you figure you're going to really offend between now and Nov? People who will either vote for McCain or stay home? I won't be in that group, but I'm giving odds that quite a few will be turned off with this eery shit? But I'm starting to suspect you guys really don't care. Now if that ain't some wierd shit, I don't know what is.
Grow up! If you need some politician to motivate you to do the right thing, volunteer, give back to your country, then you need to rethink that because maybe, just maybe the politicians aren't the problem, we're the problem.
In the meantime, all Obama can get is my one vote. I ain't drinking Saint Maybe's Kool-Aid.
Good fucking god. Did someone switch the regular commenters with the rabble at Firedoglake or Huffington Post?
Shoo! Shoo, you howling angry "Don't-call-me-stupid" Ottos! Back to your Undergrounds!
I keep flashing back to the 2000 campaign where the same types of criticisms were leveled against the Gore campaign: they were rude to the press, treated the press like "shit", blah blah blah.....and the GOP and the Bush campaign treated the press like kings and queens giving them catered meals and all but wiping their asses with velvet gloves.
Of course once Bush won the presidency, he went on to treat the media as though they should be fortunate to share the air he breathes. He used them - period - just like the Hillary campaign is buttering up the media and the bloggers. This is a woman who has had a very rocky road with the media in the past and now with her being far behind she needs the media to butter up her campaign.
I do agree that some aspects of the Obama campaign turn me off, but I vote for him because I like his policies and his stances and I think he will actually attempt to bring change to the White House unlike Hillary which will be the same old, same old nonsense.
shah8
I didn't say I don't understand what is going on. I've actually read Obama's website. As I have the Clinton website.
I said Obama at the Key Arena event only got into specifics briefly, and the rest was either generalizations or defense of the experience charge. I also said his supporters didn't understand what is going on, by implication in the main post, and in much greater detail in comments.
I do take seriously what you say about how people feel about being compared to being cultists. I'm not quite certain how I could have said it differently. What I wanted to say was that being there reminded me of Erhard and Bush, and that's what I said. I also wanted to say that I think we have a developing cult of personality and that's also what I said.
Perhaps I could have put in more of a disclaimer that I don't think it applies to everyone? I don't know. Maybe. Wishy-washy journalism is no ones friend.
I said what I meant and I meant what I said, you know?
I do appreciate sincerely, you taking the time to get past your upset, and lay out clearly for me, what it is that truly lay at the heart of what was upsetting you. It makes a difference for me, and will be useful for me the next time I write a strong piece.
Thank you.
This read as a hit-piece because you repeated words ("cult", etc.) that are stale and overused. They've become epithets, no matter how much you qualify them--"almost a cult but not quite a cult" is still talking about cults. If you had used the word just once or twice, that's one thing, but you were talking about cults through the whole piece. Good writing (sorry, can't avoid it here :P) means coming up with new words, new metaphors.
Myrtle June --
Ah, blind as ever. Please consider you don't actually get a damn thing I say, that you're filtering it all through your own hatred of Clinton and obsession with Obama, which is of course, precisely what I'm talking about.
Throw you out? Whatever for. *laughs* You're a walking talking wind-up-doll demonstrating my point click, click, click. Thank you most sincerely (and I mean it) for always being right there to demonstrate Obama-mania & Hillary-obsession.
mimi --
*hugs*
(Didn't actually get to caucus. It was only a going to.)
bicyclewarriorwith314 --
Useful. Thanks. --jwe
Jesse,
You've described so well what I've felt about Obama (and many of his supporters) for quite some time.
The nasty comments you're receiving further illustrate the point: this is how cult followers react.
These kinds of supporters will turn off a lot of the folks who actually vote in the general election.
Generally, mapping one's own experiences onto the behavior and motivations of others is considered to be somewhat presumptious.
Generally, when people respond to such behavior in a negative way, the response "if there was no truth to what I said, then why are you so offended" is considered to be both presumptious and immature.
It's been pretty clear to me for several weeks that you, Jesse, support Clinton in the primary, regardless of what your ass-covering "disclaimer" says. In fact, what your disclaimer does is allow you to bash/support/proselytize for or against one candidate under the false cover of self-arrogated "neutrality," and that becomes very grating and starts to feel very dishonest.
If you had bad experiences at EST meetings, or if your "Rebirthing" didn't go as well as you had hoped, that's your problem.
Don't project your shit on us.
Oh, and by the way, one of the things candidates are SUPPOSED to do is excite their supporters and project a sense of focus, to become a focus...that's how they get elected.
If they DON'T do that (See "Kerry, John" and "Gore, Al"), they lose.
People are looking for a focus for their energy and hopes. The candidate who best meets that need will win.
Whether or not that candidate will deliver, whether or not that is a good way to run a political system, whether or not that is healthy...is a totally different argument.
As for what I think will result from EITHER an Obama or a Clinton presidency... Neither one will do anywhere near what any sane, thinking, progressive human being KNOWS needs to be done in any political arena.
The differences, in my book, are that 1) Clinton voted for the war and continues to defend that vote and support the continued occupation in a number of ways; 2) Clinton and the people around her have a pretty well-documented history with respect to promises, platitudes, and delivery on same. NAFTA, Welfare Reform, Privatization, busting the Teamsters strike and taking out the more progressive of the Teamster presidents, Telecom dereg, and all the rest. BAD!.
Obama has some good policy proposals (as does Clinton, and some of hers are better, to be sure)...but the main thing that Obama is doing is energizing vast swaths of people to get engaged. That is the ONLY thing that will, in the long term, make any difference. Breaking the back of the DC-centric consultocracy and getting back to broad populist politics is the only thing that will really make any difference.
Anna illustrates my points quite well.
Jesse slings some nasty innuendo and broad-brush calumny about a huge group of people based on one or two personal experiences...
A large group of articulate and engaged patrons of this site respond with pretty serious outrage to the suggestion that we are all dupes of a cult leader on the scale of Erhard or Bush (and the associated innuendos regarding cults in general - Jim Jones, Moon, Mussolini, Hitler, Stalin, etc).
Our upset and discomfort shows that a "button was pushed", and that therefore there must be more than a little truth to what Jesse says.
Puerile, self-serving, dishonest, and childish...and very insulting.
Try this one on: I am order to strip and prepare for a cavity search. I refuse, standing on my "rights" to be free from unreasonable search and seizure. My refusal is therefore taken as proof of guilt, because, clearly, if I had nothing to hide, I would not want to avoid the strip search.
Same meme.
Grow up.
Oh yeah. Glen Beck covered the same "Cult" whine as Jesse did tonight. I caught it just as I was waiting for the word from the VOTERS..... who kinda spoke pretty loudly.
If I waded in here runny nose and all, and asked folks to hug and make up would it make a difference?
we are ultimately on the same team.
* tlg pulls blankets over sore red gator nose and waits to see if there will be a sensible moving on or more bloodshed...
this thread is what i would expect after reading the headline ... obama supporters are so strident when they feel they have been insulted or their choice isnt getting the respect he deserves. come on folks, this is just the primary season and the race really hasnt been that dirty so far in comparison to other races. how are you going to react, when the repig slime machine goes into high gear if barack gets the nod.
the talk of the old politics of the clintons and triangulation and all the other charges i hear ignore the reality of political races. what is going to happen when the press with the gop start swift boating obama ... or do you really think they wont go after him with a vegenance. can obama and his team and his supporters weather the assault that is coming ... if you think being called a cult member is hurful ... my god you have alot to learn.
I will if they will.
If you think that a movement is wrong or is liable to be dissappointed or the people are just being used, then you need to describe the dynamics of the situation. What is the Obama campaign consuming from it's supporters? Are the supporters informed correctly about the purposes of involvement?
I'm not tagging this all correctly from the couch, but in no kind of order:
At the Obama rally that I drove an hour to get to, and got stuck in the most hellacious traffic jam in the history of my state leaving, here are some things I noticed:
The crowd was enormous and younger than any Democratic event I've ever seen including the '92 Clinton/Gore campaign.
When I asked folks of any demographics, and I was broad about it, Why are you supporting Obama? the answers were vague. All responses were, I want change.
These were not politicized folks. And my concern about them is simple: I'm delighted to see more people and more kinds of people engaged by politics, but what are they going to do when they are disappointed as is inevitable?
And meanwhile, assuming that the crash hits them sometime before their guy is sworn in by (goddess help us) Chief Justice John Roberts, how is it going to affect the election, the future of the Democrats and the prospects for progressive change in my kid's lifetime?
Those are my concerns.
bama,
it is to be expected from the corporate media and the ratfucking republicans...
And it happened a lot during the Dean candidacy.
But I was under the impression that people had started to see that attacking the CANDIDATE was one thing, and attacking the VOTERS was another, and that the Dem/Progressive crowd had started to learn a TINY bit about how to discern the difference.
Calling out Obama on a vote, on a policy, on a proposal...FINE!!! Claiming that he is too vague on specifics...FINE (debatable, but whatever).
But taking that step one further and claiming to sense an air of cults based around the fact that people are excited about the man and taking great joy and pride in attending rallies for his candidacy and working for his candidacy???
Not cool.
Geez! Don't you people know what an analogy is? LowerManhattanite was right the other night when he commented on how people have lost command of language. It's "a similarity between like features of 2 things on which a comparison can be based." It gives you a frame of reference. It's not saying something is precisely that. But my thanks to all of you Obama people for proving that where there's smoke, a fire seems to be starting.
Jesse, it's admirable that you are open to critique. For the record, the part about how each camp treated you was of the least interest to me. Obama already has Secret Service protection so I would imagine a certain degree of tension on the part of everyone. But I accept that the treatment was part of the experience you were describing. Did it color the Obama experience for you? I personally don't know what's in your heart. But the rest of the article is what caught my attention, because I've read other pieces and comments on blogs describing eerily the exact same thing and these people weren't journalists. And from the tv coverage, my only frame of reference, what they show in terms of the crowd creeps me out. So sue me Obama supporters.
CNN showed him coming out to greet supporters who couldn't get in last weekend in Washington and I remember the face of a blond girl whose eyes were literally glazed over. Sorry but I've seen that look before. It's not healthy. I have to say, it's not Obama who creeps me out as much as the people. It's making me wonder what kind of needy people are walking around these days. Even if Obama is the Political Messiah, FDR re-incarnated or some such, I fear more that we are populated with a society of people who are ripe for a serious manipulation in the wrong hands. I'm not saying Obama is the wrong hands. I'm saying his supporters need to dig themselves. And when they bristle at commentary and critique, all the more reason to feel justified in my thinking. Why, if you can speak your mind, why can't I speak mine if it doesn't jibe with your worldview?
Uh-uh... Something's wrong with that.
Phoenix,
That is the risks that are inherent to democracy, and to being young.
What we are doing now, and have done in the past 30 years is just NOT WORKING.
We have gone SO wrong, so badly, so many times in the last decades, that it seems to me that engaging a huge population of "not politicized" but energetic, enthusiastic, young, and hungry people is a gamble well worth taking.
Seriously: Bush, Clinton, Bush, Reagan, Carter, Ford, Nixon... That was the best that the "politically educated and politically savvy" could do?
And the nominees? Dukakis, Mondale, Kerry, Gore (who was a different man at the time)???
Puh-leeze.
You may not have faith in Obama (and I certainly do not advocate placing great faith in ANY politician!)...but please at least TRY to have some faith and trust in the people working their hearts out for him...
AND for Clinton.
Did Werner Erhard have Lawrence Tribe on my TeeVee telling me he was brilliant at Harvard Law School? Umm, no.
Obama's more than a rally. I think you are taking your personal experience of a couple of campaign events a little far here. I saw Bill Clinton in New Hampshire and Massachusetts in 1992 and the crowds were moved. Paul Tsongas just recited lists of what he would do (a la Hillary). And guess what? Bill won.
Don't worry, be happy, we've got two great candidates. Don't see a monster under the couch when there is none.
What I got from this post is simply a message to Obama supporters (of which I am one) to calm down and recognize that following only your emotions can sometimes lead to bad places.
That said, there is a tremendous value to harnessing the emotional, illogical power of youth, for whom anything is possible.
Been Grandmotherin, so just got here.
Jesse-
Wow... just... wow...
Hope you have taken your blood pressure meds, and get a good night sleep.
It is really interesting how the commenters just PROVE your point.
The thing is, I'm not a novice at making assessments of people or of rooms or people.
I stand by what I said, even if it upsets people.
I take seriously the critiques of the post.
So, to be clear, I am not trying to marginalize folks, nor am I trying to say that all Obama supporters have their heads in the clouds.
What I am saying is why is it:
a) so many Obama supporters don't have a clue what their guy stands for?
b) so many Obama supporters at the event seemed high (and don't tell me I don't know what high looks like)? and
c) why on not just GNB, but throughout the blogosphere, Obama supporters are making pretty ugly attacks while you simply don't see that kind of attack from Clinton supporters?
PS. I like the enthusiasm of the kids. Go enthusiasm. That isn't what I'm talking about. It's the eyes-glazed-over vapid not thinking for themself yet so certain that Obama is right and everyone else is wrong and Obama will save everything, I'm talking of.
Where is that coming from? Is is just the political equivalent of first love? I'm perplexed. Because I see it from 40 year olds and 30 year olds, as well as from kids. All these true believers, who tell me if only I'd have hope and stop being a cynic, well then I too would know that only someone like Obama can save America from the bad guys. That's the reverse of what I'm being accused of, of being too cynical, and part of the problem that Obama is here to save America from.
Catch-22.
I've noticed that Obama now includes an extensive tax cut plan and IRS overhaul into his speeches. He didn't do this earlier.
I also recognize the Ron Paul enthusiasts among his fans. The irony being that Obama is creating a new neo-liberalism that is even more conservative than the neo-liberalism formerly attributed to Bill Clinton.
Some of my best friends like Obama, and some of the people that scare me the most do, too. We've got a long way to go before this race is decided and I hope that in the end, it's democrats who decide who their nominee will be.
Is this, maybe, Reaganism of the left?
There's a simple word for this post: JEA-LOU-SY! Well, two actually. How about EN-VY?
Does anyone really ... really ... really think that the followers of Hillary would object to such behaviour if it happened in their camp?
NOT! [Via Jason Linkins]
Jesse,
Just fucking STOP.
How do YOU know that "so many Obama supporters have no clue what he stands for"??? Have you actually ASKED "so many Obama supporters, or are you channeling Tom Friedman when he interviews taxi drivers to understand a culture/country of a billion people?
People being "high" at a political event in which a candidate who is NOT Bush, who IS a good man, who DOES have a lot of excellent policy proposals, who DID stand up and speak out against the war BEFORE that atrocious bill was signed by congress? Surprised? People being "high" at an event where the politician is trying very hard to show that he is listening to them, trying very hard to chart a course to recovery from 8 years of the most insane, most destructive, most mendacious administration in US history? You're DAMN right people are "high" about that.
And you just fucking shove that bullshit about how only Obama supporters are making ugly attacks, because it is SIMPLY NOT TRUE. I have seen the attacks on Obama and on Obama supporters right here on this thread, and they are the equal of, if not worse than the Obama camp's attacks on Clinton and her supporters. "cultists" dewy eyed naifs, fools, don't know their own candidates positions, and on and on and on.
Finally, how's this for perspective: In 1992, when Clinton was running against Bush, hey, even when Clinton was running in the Primary, my Mom, 46 years old at the time, veteran political and social activist, Family Planning/WIC director for nearly two decades, veteran of funding battles to keep abortion services available for lower income women, to keep HeadStart available for low-income families during the Reagan Bush nightmare, my hard-nosed, hard-driving mother, no-nonsense, no bullshit...she was fucking MANIACAL about Clinton. She was absolutely ON THE BUS.
She would not shut up, she hung on every single damned word and went to every damned event, rally, meeting, whatever.
She wept when he spoke.
She was acting like a love-struck groupie when he made a speech.
She was seething with rage when he was criticized.
She broke down and sobbed when he won the election...
And her heart was broken when he (and hillary) sold us all down the fucking river.
Now she supports Obama.
Point is: Candidates who represent massive, long-overdue change, who project a sense of hope, who provide a focus for pent-up need for forward looking, progressive gains WILL ALWAYS attract a huge degree of highly emotional, highly charged support.
You all are responding the way you do because you want that energy to be focused on Hillary Clinton.
There are many who DO focus that kind of energy on Hillary Clinton, and more power to them and to you.
But do NOT denigrate those of us who support obama by sneering at that level of engagement.
It stinks of sour grapes.
Yes, it's true that many people will be disillusioned with the political process. Obama certainly isn't going to be able to take on the established powers until things get worse, and there's no telling if he really wants to do so.
On the other hand, isn't it likely that with such a large haul, Obama is going to bring in a whole new crop of politically active people? A whole new group of mayors, congresscritters, political activists and campaign people, and yes, new presidents--as Bill Clinton is to JFK.
It's always a mix. Dissappointment is a big part of life, necessarily so because the anticipation is so much of what gives our lives spice and rush!
But still, it's hard to say that after so many false starts in 2000 and 2004, Obama may truly bring out the youth vote.
It's an old song these days, but I say, play "Smells Like Teenage Spirit" at TOP VOLUME. Party On while you still have hope and life. There'll be a hangover on the morn, but the now is great! And a hangover isn't the end of the world.
Somehow I stumbled over here from 'The Agonist.'
Someone said this:
"The responses on this thread certainly reinforce the post's points."
Someone else responded:
I don't see that. I see people being offended by being patronized? and characterized as cult follwers.
but anyway, let's talk about the fisa bill and the returns coming in now.
the littlest gator | Homepage | 02.12.08 - 5:22 pm
I read the post; I read the disclaimer - throw that thing out. I've read the comments. Regardless of 'the littlest gator's' response, this thread does appear to confirm the poster's points.
I find myself very uncomfortable with Barack Obama and this phenomenon. I went to the Obama rally here in Boise. He said nothing of substance. In fact, he gives the same speech over and over and over again.
At the same time, I'm no fan of Hillary Clinton and definitely not of political dynasties. My candidate was John Edwards.
I do know this, whoever gets the nomination that's who I will support because the alternative will be too much to bear.
His Mega-Rallys remind me of...
oh, wait... I SEE it now...
Huge Evangelical Mega-Churches!
Obama is the New Joel Osteen of the Left!
Halijulia! Kumbaya!
>>Obama is the New Joel Osteen of the Left!
oh, that's right, clinton supporters never say anything mean or uncalled for... I forgot.
*blow nose and sighs
what Red Dan said.
Obama supporters = Bush supporters.
Obama supporters = cultists.
Obama rallies = EST meetings.
Obama rallies = Megachurch revivals.
People responding negatively to being called hypnotized cult-followers = "see, you're proving my point"
you people suck.
I think a lot of this vitriol is indicative of the condescension illustrated by many of the pro-Hillary commentators. Most people who vote for Obama do it for practical reasons. And the promotion of the image of some of his cheerleaders as wild-eyed cultist fanatics DOES NOT help defeat McCain in the November elections. Nor does it compose a clear picture of Obama's support.
There is nothing irrational about supporting the only candidate left that opposed the war, has a less sucky healthcare plan than Clinton and ACTUALLY VOTES against telco immunity. Senator Clinton is losing this race for very rational reasons. She lost the black vote because her surrogates beat up on Obama as "we know what he was doing on the block back in the day" guy. Senator Clinton SHOULD NOT blame anyone but herself for polling the same as a Republican would among the African-American community.
I know a lot of women here and in this country are going to be disappointed that Clinton is less likely to be the nominee at this point. But what she has done has already been historical and there will be others that follow in her footsteps.
When you have a current leader that has essentially driven his country into the ground and despair, you will always have to be beware of the Knight on the White Horse coming to save us all. Obama ain't that kind of leader guys. And I am telling you as his constituent here in Illinois for 4 years that he has a lot of potential that we saw demonstrated yesterday on the FISA vote, but he is still very much a work in progress. And yet he still compares very well against Hillary Clinton.
We need to end this war. We need to fix this constitutional crisis. There are few that can do that, and in my estimation Obama is the more reliable of the two to do that. He has taught Constitutional law. He has organized on the streets. His Senate office here is Illinois is about as responsive as a stalled donkey on a bridge since he started to run for President, so frankly we gotta get him out of here and get a Durbin clone. Or another Feingold. Though with Blago as governor it will probably be a corrupt crony. This is neither here or there. Just reminding people not to lump their observations to include everyone they oppose.
And thanks, jesse for croos posting this on "No Quarter" - a blog where you definitely NEVER EVER EVER see any kind of vitriol against Obama. I give you three guesses who Larry and Susan support.
I guess the "Fuck You MoveOn.Org" post was just good christian fellowship.
As are any other rants by Larry Johnson against Obama.
I got no problem with people feeling strongly about their candidate, but when you claim he is fighting the entire Democratic Party?
Who's drinking Kool-aid now?
and that would be "cross-posting" ... channeling moonglum there for a minute...
Yeah, the cross post on No Quarter is kinda revealing, considering that the majority of the posts on the front page are a) Anti-Obama (fine), b) Pro-Clinton (fine), or c) extremely derogatory toward Obama supporters in vitriolic, nasty, and unsupportable ways (not cool at all).
Really very nice way to spread a destructive and counterproductive meme, Jesse.
Nicely done.
May I suggest you modify your "Disclaimer"?
NOTE: Nothing in this post should be subject to argument, nor should anything I say be disagreed with, because disagreeing with it means you are proving my point. This is an article with statements that I declare to be facts, and no amount of contrary evidence will change the reality of the facts that I declare. Any contrary pieces of evidence are invalid and further prove my point. I have made up my mind, but I am not going to say so, and I will reserve the right to hide behind false neutrality. Any attempt to suggest that I am pushing a point of view that has a bias one way or another further proves my point. I intend to add this camouflage to all my posts so as to enable me to deflect or avoid any substantive criticism of my derogatory and inflammatory assertions.
There, fixed! And all for free, because I am such a nice guy.
no quarter is icky.
*sneezes*
but life rolls on. (to Minnesota)
wow. as a canadian i follow american politics because what happens to my south often effects life here almost as much as what happens in our own politics.
last week i got into a conversation with an obama supporter that revolved entirely around me asking what the man's policies were and answers that revolved around hope and change. when i pressed about hope for what and change of what, i was told that the important thing was the hope and the change, specifics would come later. as things went on i got no substantive information and my questions began to generate hostility.
from what i've read and seen, the democrats have two mediocre candidates after allowing the quality folks to be abandoned. chris dodd has talked the talk and walked the walk. he's opposed the war, supported lamont against lieberman, fought fisa and championed the constitution. you set him adrift. kucinich was possibly the most intelligent and progressive candidate you had. but oh gosh he's short and has big ears. so long dennis. edwards was your last hope for a candidate that actually had some progressive policy. i don't know why he wasn't supported, perhaps because some power brokers decided it was time to make some candidate history. who knows. the fact is you pissed on your best and brightest and now you have a choice between the mean girl with baggage and the pop star. way to go american left.
from a removed stand point, obama seems to be selling obama juice. he isn't selling his policies. hillary is a corporation. best of luck determining the lesser of evils.
Jesus Christ. Enough is enough.
Pretty much always, if someone asks nicely, I let anyone who wants to, cross post, unless they're LGF.
You want to cross post, write me, and I'll say yes.
They wrote, said who they were, and I said yes. That's all there is to it. I don't examine people's political views before saying yes to a posting request. What the hell is wrong with you folks?! This is precisely what I'm talking about!!! You're become paranoid fruitcakes. Really. Get a grip.
I trust our readers to sort it all out. Our posts are crossposted (or large chunks of them) all over the place. At AlterNet. At Salon. At Raw. Sara writes for Orcinus and other places. I write for techPresident.
This one you complain about because you don't like them.
Let me help...
You thought this sucked. You think I suck. You think I'm a big fat liar who disrespects you and all Obama people forever. I lie and I lie about lying, as I propagate right wing talking points, suppressing the righteous enthusiasm of volunteers and people like yourself who have spent many hours carefully making up their mind whom to support. Also, my timing couldn't be worse, given the election today as clearly this was all an attempt to kill the Obama momentum for Hillary. Because clearly I'm in the tank for Hillary.
You've all made your points. Many times. Give it a rest. Please.
First of all, I can't believe I didn't say "more heat than light" to myself 20 minutes ago and stop reading this thread.
Second.
Jesse, what you said attempted to classify the appeal of a fairly large movement based on fairly small pieces of data. People who are "excited about change" are more likely to show up at a rally. Me, I'm more interested in making calls and raising money (and sending my response to the standard right wing smears going around my wife's new york family). Not going to a rally.
Second, you're comparing best effort for apples and oranges, a 3000 person rally vs a 20,000 person rally. Not a strict comparison.
Third, sure, people aren't going to be happy with everything a president Obama (knock on wood) may do. But so what? I already know what I'm not going to like about another Clinton or a McCain administration. Let's get disappointed by somebody totally new and different.
viva la differance. Fuck the GOP. And Fuck The Fucking Yankees.
wow. that 'No Quarter' ...I kept reading and thinking: hey, it's liberal wingnuts! (if such a thing exists)...never read it before, and clearly they don't want the likes of me over there.
jesse, you're a lying liar whose pantses is on fires, and i don't likes you any more, and hates you forever... my preciousssssss...
I'll simply note that I received press credentials to the Obama event in Chicago for Super Tuesday evening. Not only was I greated with a very friendly manner when I signed in, the volunteers made certain I was well taken care of - even with a rather astonishing crush of major international press swirling about. Yes, there was security - the secret service takes all this seriously and I am glad they do. With limited space at the venue and so many media folks needing accomodation, the campaign and volunteers still kept smiling and made sure this blogger had the same access as the big crews. And these were volunteers who had been on their feet for hours and hours on a very busy day.
Given the new talking point - perhaps from the opposing campaign? of "cultish" behavior, I was observing quite carefully but saw instead a highly diverse large gathering - excited to see Obama do so well on Super Tuesday and excited about the race overall. There were high spirits and more than a few families with young children as well as folks my age (mid 50s).
And while the reception when Sen. Obama arrived was pretty excited, people were excited to see this challenge race going so well - and they were enthusiastic about the possibilities going forward.
No cult behavior, no est-creepiness, no trances - just a very energized base being brought into the political process at a time when we need all of us to win and move progressive politics forward.
It's so disappointing to see Jesse reinforcing right wing talking points and denigrating an energized Democratic base.
This is precisely what I'm talking about!!!
No, it's not.
You wrote a nasty broadside that fit with the meme being put forward by some folks with a serious agenda.
They asked you to crosspost it because it reinforces their stance.
You crossposted it because they reinforced your viewpoint.
Meanwhile, and large number of the people committed to this site disagreed with you in both measured and inflammatory terms.
Perhaps that disagreement arises out of our being hypnotized by Mahesh-Orama-Bama...
Or maybe intelligent people with deep convictions object to being smeared with a broad brush by one of our own in terms that are far, far less than reasonable.
Regardless, perhaps a bit more consideration of who and what to crosspost, and why?
Perhaps a bit more self-searching before posting the first thing that comes to mind, or perhaps a bit of forethought and editing before posting something that alienates and enrages your friends and allies?
This reminds me of the post on the old News Blog where Steve called Rosie O'Donnell evil cause people got bumped from some cruise she chartered.
This discussion might be more important though. Maybe.
"It's not a cult, it's a movement."
You say to-MAY-to, I say to-MAH-to...
now obama supporters are gettign a bad rap for blasting clinton...so let me put in my disclaimer.
This is posted as a clinton hater not as a Obama supporter
Please soem one explain the FISA vote to me...what is the clinton spin on the...how dose this ACTION not validate every thing I have stated about her (again)...look her words (any ones words for that matter) are irrelivant. I worry about her ACTIONS. and the clinton actions over and over have shown them to be corpratist authoritarian fucks....they will never get my vote...ever.
we where within three votes of one of the posion pill amendments...three votes....and guess who didn't bother casue she had to rush down to her firewall...
FUCK HER, she hasn't earnd even the tinyist shread of respect. at least Mccain has the guts to put an R after his name.
Thx, Doc, a great insight into these camapigns from a personal level. Very informative, especially for foreign readers that aren't able to make their own experiences.
And this supports my views about the Obama campaign. The mass excitement without any rational reasons behind it, the closedness of the campaign that doesn't allow questions and seldom offers any answers. The grandstanding with mushy, unspecific slogans.
No misunderstanding, pls: Obama may be the better candidate. But from what is known about him so far, from his campaign speeches and debating, the US people can't know for sure. The uncritical enthusiasm of his supporters remains a riddle to observers from the outside.
:-/
"Or maybe intelligent people with deep convictions object to being smeared with a broad brush by one of our own in terms that are far, far less than reasonable."
Smeared? Jesse's story here is an account of his personal experiences when visiting both campaigns. Many here admit that observations like the over-the-top enthusiasm at the Obama rallies are true. You may take exception on conclusions like "people are VERY focused on Obama and don't really know much about what he stands for", sure, but they are clearly based on what Jesse saw and heard. This is an honest account from a personal point of view, but certainly not a smear job!
And all those who go that far in criticizing Jesse should not only be ashamed, but ask themselves, too, if they are really doing the Obama campaign a favor by spilling this hatred. Is this what you call "unity"? Is this a "change" in political discourse? Certainly not. If you really believe that those buzzwords have any importance, you should start with yourself in making them come true.
|-(
comon Gray give us something on FISA...whats the talking point to explain that .
This line from Jesse post is very telling
"I've been around cults, religions, and high-dominance authoritarian institutions much of my life."
it explains the love for hillary as authroitarian types are drawn together.
One more point about the treatment of the media by the Obama campaign: Jesse isn't the first one to report this, not even the tenth one, there are countless stories supporting this. And if this attitude doesn't change soon, this may become a real problem in the general election. Everybody knows that the damn journalists simply love McCain, the "straight talking" "maverick". Most of this comes from McCain's habit of not only treating the press corpse like human beings, but acutally like the VIPs they long to be. So, i wouldn't at all be surprised if the current mood in the media swings after the nomination and Obama gets the "Hillary treatment" as revenge. Regarding the fact that McCain is unexplicably popular among independents, the media working for him might swing the election. A horrible outlook.
:-|
come on gray im still waiting for the FISA spin...still waiting on the talking points from hillary?
As you know by now, I answered this in the Donna Edwards thread. And, sry, but I won't answer every single one of your comments here anymore. You already acknoledged you hate Hillary, so what would be the point? Just a waste of time, right?
:-/
And yet another steps into the fray, claiming victimhood for those who initiate nasty attacks on huge groups of people.
"Obama Supporters This, and Obama Supporters That..."
That's a lot of people, brother Gray.
A LOT of people...
People that you really, actually, honestly do want to be on your side and voting your way, either now or in the general.
Perhaps one might want to THINK a little bit before trying to hamstring a campaign by attacking a large number of its supporters.
Attack his positions? Fine. Attack his record? Fine. Attack his campaign rhetoric? Fine.
But put on your BIG smarty pants hat, and wonder out loud: is it really a good idea to implicitly or explicitly alienate a huge group of my supposed allies?
I am not a clinton supporter. I do not think she would make the best candidate or the best president, based on her record, her rhetoric, her performance in the senate, and her platform (some of the planks are better than obama's some are worse, IMO).
But you don't see me, or many Obamoids running around calling all clinton supporters republicans, cultists, drones, or morons, now do you.
I will CERTAINLY call Mark Penn, Paul Begala, James Carville, and the rest of her inner circle of advisers, flacks, and friends names...but not her supporters.
No way.
Hi Gray,
The democratic party has never been united before. It has always been divided from its' founding to the present day. Maybe one day I will write a post on that.
As for Jesse I think that what people are objecting to is as people said up stream being compared to cultists and being painted as unthinking automatons. From my perspective the problem is that the piece was written in an incendiary tone so it led to a very negative response.
If you had said that some of the people at the rally did not have any idea what Obama's policy was I don't think that anyone would have been pissed at you.
I think that RedDan & others have explained why they found the article offensive & incendiary. Also implying that Obama is like Bush or a one bit hustler from the 80s is not commenting about his policy views or votes in both Illinois & DC. I don't know if you had you coeditors review the article before it was posted but that might have been a good idea.
During on of Lincoln's first speeches he had to show his neighbours why lynching a journalist, burning his office, & throwing the press into the river was wrong. Abe knew that he could not convince Springfielders by calling them a crazy mob or use other harsh words for describing the community, instead he found a way to get people to listen to what he had to say & consider it instead of dismissing it out of hand.
"That's a lot of people, brother Gray."
Amen, brother. However, no misunderstanding, pls, but that quote is not from me, right? (at least not from this thread)
"People that you really, actually, honestly do want to be on your side and voting your way, either now or in the general."
And the same is true the other way round. How about some unity instead of that irrational Clinton hatred?
"Perhaps one might want to THINK a little bit before trying to hamstring a campaign by attacking a large number of its supporters."
Exactly! I'm doing as much thinking as I'm able to. Sry if my intelligence comes short in your opinion. However, it would be nice to see some more original thinking on the other side, too. People stubbornly insisting on causses being great means for establishing democratic decisions, in spite of the obvious shortcomings in voter participation, don't really leave the impression that they have been thinking much lately. And mindlessly attacking someone who is simply reporting facts as a smear author sure isn't a show of rational discourse.
"But you don't see me, or many Obamoids running around calling all clinton supporters republicans, cultists, drones, or morons, now do you."
WHAT? Uh, excuse me, but have you really read this thread and still think every insult is fact based? You've got to be kidding...
"I will CERTAINLY call Mark Penn, Paul Begala, James Carville, and the rest of her inner circle of advisers, flacks, and friends names...but not her supporters."
Good stance, thx. And at least we're united in the view that those establishment advisers have had a negative impact on the campaign.
Just my 2 penny's worth, because this is a debate worth having before the Candidate is chosen.
The man inspires people, how is that bad?
The man is telling us that enough is enough, no more of the same crap that's dragged America down for the past 30 years, how is that bad?
The only real question is, does he really mean it? IMO he deserves the chance, the opportunity to walk the talk, and if he does walk the talk, America gets a big massive boost. And quite frankly if he doesn't I still think he will serve as more as an agent of change than Hillary, who I have no doubt will make things better, the real question is how much better do you want America to be.
I for one believe that America needs to move to the left, Socialism is not a dirty word, the society needs to look out for everyone not just the top 2% .
Bottom line America needs inspired leadership, I think Obama provides more of that than Hillary.
Look what happened in the Senate over the past couple of days, that is a pointer to the kind of change that needs to occur in America, I honestly don’t think Hillary can make that kind of change, I don’t think she wants to…
Obama gets the benefit of the doubt, give the Brother a chance
Most of the vitriol toward the Clinton campaign that I have seen is aimed pretty explicitly at Hillary Clinton, or at her advisors and inner circle.
Some of that vitriol has been WAY over the top and unwarranted...some of it I agree with (FISA vote, War vote, Video Games, Lieberman support, and so forth).
A lot, but certainly not all of the vitriol aimed at the Obama campaign seems to be aimed at his supporters. Not cool.
As for "facts" - I challenge that assertion. I do not think it possible that Jesse's impression of a crowd of 20,000 counts as a "fact" regarding their comprehension of his stances. Maybe he talked to 10 people? Maybe he is basing it on "the glazed look" in someone's eyes? Maybe that person was tired, or had the flu, or was hungover? Sheesh. One's impression of a crowd is hardly a "fact"...
And another thing (you knew there was another thing!!): Perhaps there is a networking/mentoring thing happening, where people who trust other people are signing on to the campaign based on networks of trusted friends? I trust a good friend, agree with her politics, and know that she spends a great deal of her time researching the depths and breadth of political policy stances. She tells me that she trusts and admires Obama, and is not so psyched about Clinton.
Maybe I am a slow reader, maybe I have two jobs, maybe I am really busy at school or work and have no time to do all that reading. I trust her, and I like what I hear from Obama...so I go with Obama.
It happens a lot, it might not be the best thing in the world, but it happens...just because ONE individual is not a policy wonk who can list of position after position on the drop of a hat...does not make all the people associated unable to articulate the policies.
Besides, how many of you hear REALLY believe that EITHER Obama or Clinton are going to retain ANY of their initial policy positions once the rubber hits the road and they are tasked with implementing policy as an Executive?
Heh.
"The democratic party has never been united before."
Right. Not even the Democratic Party. So, wtf is Obama talking about? It's just wishful thinking.
"As for Jesse I think that what people are objecting to is as people said up stream being compared to cultists and being painted as unthinking automatons. From my perspective the problem is that the piece was written in an incendiary tone so it led to a very negative response."
Hmm, afaics "cult" is mentioned four times, first as a question in the headline, secondly as a quote, thirdly in "I won't go so far as to call the Obama organization a cult" and then in "This at the least, approaches a serious cult of personality". so, you really can't say that Jesse is restating republican talking pijtns or somehting like that. He clearly struggles to find the right words for the rockstar-like movement. Or do you want to deny that the admiration for Obama is reaching levels that can't be rationally explained by his resumee, his program, or his actions so far?
Criticizing being depicted as "unthinking" or "high" is a point, sure, but Jesse made it clear that this is the impression he personally got at the rally. Of course, it can be discussed if this isn't a too subjective view to post it here, but the amount of hatred directed toward Jesse is unwarranted.
"Also implying that Obama is like Bush" didn't happen! The actual quote is [the focus on Obama] "is easily up to the Werner Erhard / George W. Bush level". See, this isn't about a comparison between Obama and Bush, this is a comparison of their supporting crowds! Important difference. Of course, this is something that can be discussed, but let's pls stay with the fact in doing this, ok?
"Most of the vitriol toward the Clinton campaign that I have seen is aimed pretty explicitly at Hillary Clinton, or at her advisors and inner circle."
Hmm, from my (very subjective) point of view as a Hillary supporter, I can't support this statement. Imho the Hillary hatred spills over and is directed at everyone that dares to defend any of her statements and actions. Doesn't matter if you're also critical of some aspects of her camapign, for instance eher advisers, in the same moment you say anthing supportive about her, Obama fans will paint you as a paid Clinton shill, a robot, or even worse.
"I do not think it possible that Jesse's impression of a crowd of 20,000 counts as a "fact" regarding their comprehension of his stances."
You want to imply that Jesse is lying about his impression? I guess not. If you believe that he's honest, then you have to concede it's a fact he's seeing the rally this way. The question should be instead, is it relevant?
"Perhaps there is a networking/mentoring thing happening, where people who trust other people are signing on to the campaign based on networks of trusted friends?"
Good point. I'm pretty sure that some group dynamics are involved, too.
"Besides, how many of you hear REALLY believe that EITHER Obama or Clinton are going to retain ANY of their initial policy positions once the rubber hits the road and they are tasked with implementing policy as an Executive?"
How can we knwo that? Crystall ball? Mond reading? Is it making sense to worry about this now? Really dunno.
But I know one thing, and that is that Clinton is VERY likely to work hard and try to get her heathcare plan through. See, she fumbled her first attempt, and we know Clinton is a very ambitioned lady, so it's safe to assume she wants to make good on this. She'll desperately try not to drop the ball a second time, if there's any way she can avoid it.
Holy sh*t on a shingle! Someone writes a REASONED piece about the comparison of two events and gets attacked for it. Way to bend WAY over backwards to PROVE HIS POINT FOR HIM!
I have never in my life seen the use of straw men that I am seeing now. A constant in the GOP, I always thought they reigned supreme in the straw man arguments, but I see my fellow Dems are even better at it. Holy crap, NOBODY called you personally a cult member (though a pretty fair chunk of the crowd here seems to want to wrestle that banner away and hold it high, based on their comments). It stands to reason that the people who populate the left-leaning blogs are going to be considerably more politically astute than the average person who *maybe* catches the news at night or the first half of "Today" in the morning. I am quite sure Jesse ASSUMES that you have all sorts of valid reasons to support your candidate - he wasn't freaking talking about you.
I don't have a dog in the race - as far as I am concerned, they are both DLC and flip sides of the same coin. I will vote fore the winner, and hope like hell they have the grit to take on the GOP. And by the way, if you think the GOP will wilt away from your response to ANY mention that Barack might be anything less than Godlike, well, you have another thing coming.
I keep wondering if Sarah will write something about this - she is so very good on the subject of Authoritarianism. Of course, after this, I sort of doubt it.
Feh. I thought we were better than this. Keep them coming Jesse. You nailed it right between the eyes. And BTW, I voted for Obama.
"The man is telling us that enough is enough, no more of the same crap that's dragged America down for the past 30 years, how is that bad?"
It's not bad, baba, but that he makes these grand statements and broad promises, without following up with clear proposals how he wants to accomplish this, and how his approach is so much different from hillary's, this is leaving many with the imüpression that he is a phony. That's the main point of criticism.
Hey, will you simply believe a salesman, no matter how charming he is, when he is promising you that his snake oil will let your hair grow again, will make you irresistible for women and will make your muscles grow? Certainly not. you would hesitate and wonder if it is even possible that his stuff can really do all those great things. And when you ask him for specifics, and essentially all he answers is "trust me", you certainly won't buy, right? So, why and how is Obama any different?
I hope I made the view of Obama criticizer a bit more clear. Thx for weighing in, baba!
Gray wow you got somethign right..she will work hard to get her gift to the health insuracne comapnies passed...fuckign mandated insurance...any one here besides me ever have to get nongroup insurance in this country...its crap absolute crap...dosnt' cover anything...spenmt 1500 a montht on the best plan I could get...didn't cover a damm thing..not well vists for the kids, not prenatle, labor, or delivery for the wife...not post dilivery hospital saty...thsi was the best plan on the market...and it covered jack shit.
hillary "health care plan" is a gift to this industry..i very quickly relised that I was better off putting that 1500 a mont in the bank and pay for stuff out of pocket...nongroup plans are worthless...why would you involve the industry that is the problem in your supossed solution.
hell the hart of her last health care plan where HMO's how is taht workign for you?
As a longtime Dem, I feel qualified to make this comment:
Only Democrats would start feeling squishy/guilty about having a candidate who exudes more charisma than, say, Michael Dukakis.
No election will be determined -- dare I say, no election ever HAS been determined -- by the broad electorate carefully weighing each candidates' positions and, after a period of angst-ridden analysis, picking their person. Rolling out charts and spreadsheets and talking policy can win over policy wonks, but the rank-and-file voter?
In a perfect world, maybe so. That would be great. But we live in a world where presence matters. Having someone who scores highly in that area is a plus, not automatically a negative.
One thing that concerns me is that we Democrats, so long in the wilderness, now seem to have nothing left to cling to other than being the "cerebral" party. We may be powerless, but doggoneit, we're smarter than those Bushie followers!
Giving that up to become part of a popular movement based in part on personality and viscera can be scary, to say the least. (I know I'M feeling it, to a degree.)
And I think I'm seeing some reflection of that here.
This isn't an indictment on Clinton, at all. I think the party served up three pretty great candidates, and I'm on board with whoever.
But, can we just lighten up a bit and enjoy having a charismatic presence on our side of the ledger for a change?
Oh, and one more thing: Considering how the non-MSM (I think credibly) pegged the press as less charitable to the Gore Campaign in 2000 due to his less-than-warm relationship with media members ... complaining about the Obama Camp's poor treatment of the press, well, that pushes some buttons right there. Just something to keep in mind.
"she will work hard to get her gift to the health insuracne comapnies passed"
How is regulation of insurances a gift to the companies?
How is having to accept every customer something they want?
How is making medicare the standard a gift to insurers?
And how on earth is then Obama's plan NOT a gift to insurance companies by your reasoning? The plans are nearly identical, except the mandate.
Speaking of the mandate, you want to say the readers here it would be a good idea NOT to have healthcare insurance? Especially when both plans make coverage affordable for everybody? You wanna say the reasonable customers won't have to pay for the freeriders' bills at the emergency rooms? And if having insurance is reasonable, and freeriders aren't people that should be supported, wtf is the problem with the mandate then???
"But, can we just lighten up a bit and enjoy having a charismatic presence on our side of the ledger for a change?"
Certainly, Zarley. But if that charismatic leader makes broad promises that are impossible to keep (sry, but "unity" is a pipe dream, for instance), this will lead to an awful lot of frustration after the election, and this should be pointed out. People shouldn't cast their votes based on misleading assumptions.
And, btw, "charisma" isn't exactly the most important characteristic for a president, right? It certainly won't help him/her much when making the tough decisions for the nation's safety and wellbeing. Simply chosing the more charismatic candidate for president may be a widespread attitude, but it still is a dangerously naive one. At least imho.
And, btw, "charisma" isn't exactly the most important characteristic for a president, right?
I do agree wholeheartedly. I do not, however, see Obama as an empty suit. I see him as a qualified candidate with more charisma than many Democratic candidates going back more than 30 years.
On the whole, I view this as a plus, not a negative.
I mean, Reagan didn't win landslides because of his policies, which, even then, didn't pass the laugh test. (I mean, did anyone REALLY ever believe in "trickle down"?)
He won because of his charisma. And we've been screwed up to various degrees in the years since.
And now we have a guy with a similar connection with people ... only this time he more or less shares my values and my priorities? I can't lose much enthusiasm over that simply because I have some disagreements with him over details in his health-care plan.
If I felt Obama was truly nothing but charisma, perhaps I'd be worried.
Gray...waht fucking freeriders..i guess we ought to worry about those damm welfare moms as well.
mandates are a bad thing...they will never fly with the american populcae...
if you think teh plans are otherwise identical you obviously havent readthem...besides the mandate issue is the deal killer.
I think Moore trumps Krugerman so don't trot out meaningless pundt positions...they are meaningless.
Well, speaking as someone who decided to support Obama based entirely on information I get through my computer, I can't speak to the rockstar experience. I haven't been to a rally yet.
But, speaking as someone who teaches, I know that lots of specifics, delivered verbally, put people to sleep. I have my students read to get the bulk data, then I lecture them in broad strokes to help them get the big picture. That is the most efficient way.
Finally, I've watched Democrats defend their candidates against the corporate attack machine, but half-heartedly, for years. It's good to see people excited. They're going to need it.
.
Three weeks ago I told myself that what Mr. Obama reminds me of is a televangelist.
Holy sh*t on a shingle! Someone writes a REASONED piece ...
About whether people were nice to him or not.
Yep. That's some pretty fucking solid reasoning right there. Nothing like being told that the people who weren't nice to him are big poopy-heads who worship a gibbering, hollow god.
.
"Gray...waht fucking freeriders..i guess we ought to worry about those damm welfare moms as well."
"Welfare moms"? What are you, a Reagan Democrat???
"if you think teh plans are otherwise identical you obviously havent readthem"
I think I wrote "nearly identical", and, yes, I have read them. The most important points for ordinary customers are in both of them:
- insurers will have to accept customers with preexisting conditions
- regulation of the insurers, rules against denial of coverage
- Medicare will become the stadard plan, and this will enable the customer to actually compare the different offers, regarding prices and additional benefits.
- Support for the needy, enabling everyone to get insured.
With these important changes in healthcare, it will become unreasonable and irresponsible not to have insurance. So, why is the mandate a problem? Why should unreasonable and irresponsible people still be allowed to crowd the emergency rooms for free??? Hell, social security is mandatory, too, you're against that , too???
"Three weeks ago I told myself that what Mr. Obama reminds me of is a televangelist."
And in Germany, there has been lots of stories about "Obama, the messiah". 18 hits in German Google newssearch so far. And it's not that the majority of German journalists don't like Obama, it's just that even fans here think the "movement" thing is increasingly over the top.
:-/
Jesse,
Gotta say: I agree with Red Dan here.
Take down the disclaimer after that.
---Jen
Still at it, eh?
"I think Moore trumps Krugerman so don't trot out meaningless pundt positions...they are meaningless."
Hey these are my own positions, worked out by my own reasoning! Actually, being such a "smart pants" guy, convinced of my "self-importance", I think many media pundits are simply stealing from my comments!
:D
As for Moore, he's a determined liberal filmmaker, a great guy, producing fantastic propaganda. I like him and bought two of his books and a movie. But for reality based reasoning I stick with Krugman.
Egad. I don't have time to read through all this, but I think I see the basic point. And my question to Jesse is this:
So what?
All you're seeing here is Obama's charisma in action. People are moved by it. He's using it, and that's smart. That's the way to get elected in this country, because... allow me to channel some Rude Pundit here... Americans are some dumb motherfuckers.
This is not a nation of policy wonks and politically involved activists. People vote based on emotion, based on their gut feeling, based on a candidate's charisma.
For proof, I offer Exhibit A: George W. Bush. Case fucking closed.
Obama has great charisma -- he'd better, because he's swimming against a current of racism that a lot of people don't want to admit is there. So he's working that charisma, he's firing people up, and he's gaining momentum every day.
This is a problem for you?
As far as I see it, this is the reality of America. Obama gets criticized for having Style over Substance. But think about it: at least since the age of TV, every president has been either a Style president or a Style + Substance president. Substance is optional. Style is mandatory.
The policy positions between the two candidates are rather small, so the Clinton people have to attack Obama for his charisma.
What the hell else are they going to do?
.
Is anyone out there besides me concerned about the fact that the MSM has been pushing Obama since the Iowa primary? Since I see them as the mouth of their corporate masters, when the MSM jams something down my throat, it starts to worry me. It isn't like they want a Dem in the White House... This is one of the reasons I was so invested in John Edwards - anyone who is hated enough by the media to be disappeared the way he was is someone I want on MY side.
Here is how the narrative went: Hillary was the *presumptive nominee* for a long time, based mostly on the fact that people knew who she was. She was pushed as such by the MSM (even as they trashed her), and I think this was because they initially saw her as easy pickins. Then all of a sudden, once everyone got a good look at Obama, it became All Obama, All the time. Why? What happened to make the MSM change their minds? They aren't on the side of the progressives, so this had nothing to do with any well-wishes towards the Dems. Did they decide that Obama would make an easier opponent? Do they have something on him that hasn't come out - and WON'T until after the convention? I have NO IDEA - it may be that he is as pure as the driven snow and they just think that the combination of "Barack Hussein Osama" 24/7 and the always reliable bigotry that is a lot more prevalent than anyone seems to want to acknowledge will be enough in and of itself to tank him. I don't know what happened, but I know SOMETHING happened to cause the press to do a 180 - and it wasn't just a win in lilly-white Iowa.
I have heard McCain & Huckabee both speak to the fact that Huck's staying in the race is keeping McCain sharp. Contrast this to the group shout-down that happens if ANYONE says anything pro-Hillary. People, believe me, if this man is to be our nominee, you WANT him to be vetted - and vetted HARD. The slights you are so up in arms about from the Clintons will look like valentines when compared to what the McCain team is gonna do. I want to see that he can have the crap kicked out of him and still come back for more, because believe me, he is gonna have the crap kicked out of him, in ways that none of us are devious or psychotic enough to imagine right now. Let the guy show that he has what it takes to get up off the mat and start swinging again. And if he can't do that, he has no business getting into this. There is way too much at stake.
"Americans are some dumb motherfuckers."
Whoa! Your words, GRT, not mine. I wouldn't dare. I'm not THAT suicidal.
Just look at the amount of flaming here because Jesse wrote that the crowd at the Obama rally isn't doing any thinking...
:-/
"Is anyone out there besides me concerned about the fact that the MSM has been pushing Obama since the Iowa primary?"
Yes. And Jesse noticed this too. Pkus he warns of the likely (inevitable?) backlash:
"When the mass media which as we all know is in the bag for the Republicans, tears Obama down off the pedestal they presently are promoting him on, it will rip the heart out of these children of our future, much as it destroyed the hopes of the JFK/MLK generation four decades ago.
And the media is coming for Obama. Just as soon as they've got him where they want him, which is running against McCain."
"And, btw, "charisma" isn't exactly the most important characteristic for a president, right? It certainly won't help him/her much when making the tough decisions for the nation's safety and wellbeing. Simply chosing the more charismatic candidate for president may be a widespread attitude, but it still is a dangerously naive one. At least imho"
Gray,
In the Obama vs Clinton contest, Obama's success in beating Clinton so far is not simply due to his greater charisma, a triumph of style over substance. Hillary Clinton may lack Obama's or even Bill Clinton's stage presence, but she does a possess a decent amount of charisma in her own right, especially in comparison to John Kerry, Al Gore, and especially Michael Dukakis and Walter Mondale, so she has the ability to closely match Obama in this regard. No, the reality is that Hillary Clinton's claims about having superior substance and judgement to Obama are not really supported by her record.
Hillary Clinton's actual record is well-known to many voters, and as you have seen in many of comments posted in this thread and others, for many voters those decisions were the wrong ones, and her defense of those decisions are extremely unconvincing. Moreover, when many compare her record to Obama's on many key issues, particularly in regards to the Iraq war, they find her record very lacking in comparison to his. So when many voters hear her claim about how she will fight for universal healthcare and to end our Iraq occupation, but remember her lackluster approach in fighting for her far less ambitious managed care proposals in the 90s, and how she jumped on the Iraq war bandwagon, her substance argument fails resoundingly. Therefore, since Obama's record matches his rhetoric far more than Clinton's does, Obama actually beats her on the substance argument. In fact, one can argue that Obama beats Clinton on the substance contest more resoundingly than on the sytle contest, especially when one factors in the actual record of Hillary Clinton.
As for the argument that many Obama voters display cult-like behavior, I find that this argument has far less substance behind it when one actually examines the facts. One of the biggest signs of cult-like thinking is adherence to a belief, even when the facts positively refute it. If any voters are guilty of this pattern of behavior, it is the voters for Hillary Clinton.
Hillary Clinton routinely makes arguments for her candidacy that don't hold up when we look at her actual record. She claims that she is a fighter who knows how to get a liberal agenda passed in the face of conservative opposition, yet she and Bill's actual record is one of folding, watering down, or even coopting the conservative opposition's agenda.
She claims she knows how to beat the Republicans, but all she and Bill have ever been successful at is getting themselves elected. When it came to increasing Democratic majorities in Congress and in state governments, the Clintons possessed an appalling lack of coattails. Moreover, their biggest legislative success (NAFTA, welfare reform) were in passing items FAVORED BY REPUBLICANS. How can one say with a straight face that you know how to beat the GOP, when your biggest successes came in passing their agenda?
Knowing these facts, Clinton supporters still argue that she has the savvy and will to get the liberal/progressive agenda passed, and yet dismiss Obama voters as being quasi-cultists. People dominated by wishful thinking and reality denial have a lot of gall criticizing others as being cult-like.
BTW, Gray, considering how Obama's judgement on the merits of the Iraq war was so much better than Clinton's, there is no evidence that Clinton would display superior judgement to Obama in matters of the nation's safety and well-being.
It makes one wonder who the real cultist is.
What GRT said. And what littlest gator said. And I'm on board with the "remove the disclaimer, please" request.
About the Clinton camp's treatment of the press versus the Obama camp's--Sen. Clinton is a veteran of presidential campaigns. Certainly she knows how to manage the press. Why choose the most negative and uncharitable view of the Obama team?
Gray:
""Americans are some dumb motherfuckers."
Whoa! Your words, GRT, not mine. I wouldn't dare. I'm not THAT suicidal."
My words, and I stick by them. I have yet to see an explanation for two terms of George W. Bush that does not boil down to that simple explanation.
"I have yet to see an explanation for two terms of George W. Bush that does not boil down to that simple explanation."
Yeah, that's a point!
:-(
My two bits...
For what it's worth, Jesse, I don't think the Obama campaign was prepared for the outpouring of support that came their way as we approached the caucuses. That might explain some of the rushed, grumpy, and nonprofessional attitude you suffered at their hands. I'll be glad to have a talk with the folks at Obama Central in Seattle about this.
I was an organizer for Obama for the WA state caucuses. Obama has an incredible way of reaching out to folks, and he does have a policy statement set that is as good or better than Clinton's.
But I also have worked very hard to make it clear to my fellow local Obama supporters that....
1) This is not about personal catharsis.
2) Hillary Clinton is not the enemy - she is the opponent. And the difference matters. Fight hard, but fight clean.
3) We will need to work for Obama after Washington state, and we will need to work whoever wins the nomination in Denver. Re-read 2).
4) It will get ugly. It will not always be fun. It will require making the effort on days when you're tired of the slime and the backbiting.
5) We are all in this together.
There isn't anything wrong with a transformational candidate. Dean was that as well, even as he failed to gain the nomination in 2004.
But transformational candidates also attract the frustrated as well as the newly converted, who send emails with all-capital titles, convinced that their idea and only their idea will make things a lead pipe cinch, and why are we looking at them like that?
Obama has begun to change the direction of his speeches, most notably for the Chesapeake primaries, and I would like to see him do more things like the "interview" he had with Google a while back that had some more wonky goodness.
But at the same time, we have to make it clear to both sides, yes, to both sides, that either candidate we're blessed with is a better option than four more years of any Republican thrown at us and fawned over by a media worried more about ratings than reality.
After all this sturm und drang, I can only agree with the Canadian "Ape" upthread - OUCH!
Gray its showign that you are not an american...you jsut don't get us...we don't like crap shoved down our thorats...at elast social security is run by the goverment and based off of pretax money...it anit a big deal. mandated healthcaer..let see what would happen with that crap...companies would drop their group plans, cause you know the goverment is covering you now...then you HAVE to buy some nongroup insurance...in america that is absolute crap..sure they can't deny you the crap but between the rpeimiums and hte procedures that are not covered its still crap..and you get teh benifit of your post tax wages getting garnished to pay for that crap...that shit wont fly here. I get it, your german and don't mind bowing down to authroitarian powers ..msut be some genitic thing...in this nation we like our freedom to as opposed to your freedom from...sure there are some outlier authoritarians like jesse and the 29%'s on the republican side...but most of us hate mandates.
face it crying about the "freeloaders" on insurance is teh same as bitching about the wealfare moms(nice try at twisting my words though)
"...it will rip the heart out of these children of our future, much as it destroyed the hopes of the JFK/MLK generation four decades ago."
As a member of that generation, disillusionment with those in power and recognition of the violent danger of racism let many of us to intensify our work for justice and over time deepen our analysis of what changes were needed to achieve our goals.
As someone whose first overtly political act was pasting LBJ bumber stickers on the cars at a Goldwater rally (oops) because LBJ would "bring the boys home" when I was in jr high I know a bit about disillusionment.
Rather than attacking supporters of the candidate you don't happen to endorse, inviting them to learn more and embrace ongoing political engagment might be a good thing.
Watching progressives feed "cult" memes to Bob Dole and the R's and being insulted by those same progressives might make them wary of joining your movement to work on future issues.
oh and gray, please explan who you can think tha t hillary wont give a gift to big busnes with her mandate...after NAFTA, after bankrupcy, after FISA...what has she EVERY done EVERY in her political craeer, in her husbands polittical career (if she get to claim it as experiance I get to bring it up) In her private life as a member of the walmart board of directors...when has she ever put people before big busness..Give me one example of a time she put workers before managment..it has never happened...oh wait how about FMLA...we get 6 weeks of UNPAID leave...UNPAID wit hthe death of the unions and wage stagnation in this nation who can fucking afford to take 6 weeks off...under the clintons busness fed at teh trough and we got the scraps...ya singe me up for 8 more years of that crap.
Dammit, Safari blew up and rendered my intended post a useless pile of ones and zeroes. So here's another useless pile of ones and zeroes.
For the record I'm an Obama supporter (though Edwards was my first choice) and even PayPalled a little luv. I live outside the US, but I'm impressed even seeing him on TV. But if Clinton wins the nomination, I'll vote for her. I'll feel better if she wins it in a clean fight, but whatever.
Folks, going apeshit and dumping on Jesse for *one* post questioning the Obama phenomenon just ain't healthy. He had some legitimate questions and some of you act like he stabbed you in the back.
Hope is great. Even Hillary has to admit that now. A lot of us are desperate. I am. But I'm hopeful too. Both are proper responses to what's going on this year, but we've gotta avoid confusing the two. Otherwise, we'll go nuts before August, let alone November.
Thanks, Palamedes, for addressing the press issue--it's pretty thoughtless to leave a man leaning on a cane out in the cold.
bjacques the clinton cronies are trying to push FISA through the house now...how is it a good idea to ever vote for a clinton?
Palamedes --
I appreciate the offer very much, but don't worry about it.
What's done is done. At this point, I frankly just want this whole thing to stop.
I said what I said. Most people haven't understood it. I've tried to restate it about a zillion times. People won't listen to the restatement and insist on assuming bad faith.
For example, people keep saying I should take down the disclaimer. I've been an Edwards man all along. Then he pulled out. I've changed my mind back and forth between Clinton and Obama, over and over and over again. On Thursday evening I went to the Clinton event intending to vote for Obama. I left the Clinton event still intending to vote for Obama. On Friday after the Obama event, not so much. But then I screwed up getting to my caucus so it didn't matter. Whatever I believe about the candidates one week, changes the next. I post as I go.
You would think I've earned some trust and credibility on the blog I publish, but apparently not so much. People keep assuming bad faith. People who would never in real life, call people liars to their face, think it is okay because they're connected by this weird social network called the internet, to call a real person, a liar and question his word. It isn't.
I understand precisely why Digby shut off her comments. People attacking me, doubting my motives, calling me a liar, sending me nasty emails filled.
Fine, whatever.
Do I feel personally attacked? You bet. Did I bring some of it on myself with bad timing? You bet.
I apologize for the bad timing of the article, and for any implication people read into what I said that they, personally, were cult members.
That is not what I was saying or what I said.
I was saying that in my assessment, there is a growing obsession around Senator Obama based more on emotionalism than on rational understanding of his thought, the same kind of emotionalism we've seen before with Dean, with GWB, with Reagan, with King, with Bobby, and with JFK. I've personally seen it in how people related to the Gurumayi Chidvilassananda (Siddha Yoga), Werner Erhard, Bucky Fuller, and others. I'm not saying all apples are apples. I'm talking about the commonalities in the pure emotional appeal to people.
I'm also not necessarily talking about anyone who is reading this blog, so no one needs to feel personally offended.
The other issue I was bringing up, was how Obama supporters, attack non-Obama supporters. I have since been shown a few sites where Hillary supporters do the same and yes, they were gross. Overall however, my personal general experience has been that Obama supporters have been just vicious in defending their guy in a way that typically, these few sites not withstanding, the Clinton people have not. They have said ugly things, and they have no assumption of good faith at all. This fits in with what I said earlier.
I don't like it, and I really don't like being attacked. And it isn't "well, then you shouldn't have said what you said" either. It simply isn't the way in which people should get treated.
I've worked hard to make GNB a safe place. But lately, these political threads have become a place of all-out war. I don't like them, and not a lot of people do.
I don't know what to do about that.
Anyway, I'm done with this thread, and won't be returning.
Talk between yourselves. I'm reachable by email if someone has something I simply have to see.
I see the disclaimer is STILL UP.
You know what? I like Clinton. I like Obama. I choose to support Obama because I am a pragmatist that realizes he is more electable. Not because I am some moron who got got caught up in a cult of personality sweep. But don't underestimate the power of a movement. It will be the difference between getting a Democratic president elected with undeniable margins and having yet another election close enough to steal, with the MSM all too eager to let us know that the knee jerk idiots on the right came out in force to vote against another Clinton president as the cover up.
Digby stopped her comments because she was called a c***.
bad labelling, whether malicious or not, deserves censure.
Edited By Siteowner -- That word is not allowed on this site.
jesse still no response on how you could even think of supporpting hillary after FISA...ay i know its jsut one more in a long list of her authoritarian corpratist bent (there is a name for thattype of goverment...you know where a strong authoritarian cnetral goveremnt is combined with close govermetn ties to large corperations....what was that political phliosphe called again...sure we call it the third way now...what was it called last century...gray can you help out on that.)
I will say somethign negative abotu obama though...he expectes most people to be intlegent and self informed...he has for years fought for the middle and lower class...his actions made that evadent, his intervies and speaches while in Il madethat evadent...hes finaly puttign that out on the national stage.
what took him so long.
hey gray you want to know what the fucking difference is.
No bancurpcy bill, no fisa, no ASUMF, he has allways supported workers over big busness..his actions have allways shown this...you can nto say the same about hillary.
hey I jsut relisezed. in jesses last psot he just stated threatend to take his ball and go home...nice doc real nice.
Sara where you at, jesse authoritarianism is showing
Congratulations, this is the first article in a long time to get more than 200 comments. Thanks to everyone for making this possible.
moonglum --
no, I didn't. What I said was, I was done with this thread and that someone could contact me by email if it was important enough.
Jesus people. Grow the fuck up. Get a goddamn life.
If you find people like me so unreasonable...would you find people like those responding to Krugman's use of cult by writing the NYTime's editorial page unreasonable?
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/1...gin&
oref=slogin
Moonglum and others:
I understand where your heart is, and I agree with a lot of what you're saying.
But devouring our own does no good. And Jesse trying to give us his experiences is not a valid reason to flail him.
At the end of all this, if Obama takes the nomination, I still have to go to my Clinton and Edwards supporters and ask them to work with my district party organization. (I started as an Edwards supporter, so I still have links over there, and some of them are still hurting, still uncommitted.)
Together, we can win. Bitterly divided, we won't.
'Nuff said.
Cult!
Cult cult cult cult cult cult cult.
Truth hurts, my preciousssss it burnsssss !!!
*Cult*.
Yall display the care and intellectual self reflective ability of five year olds. Honest to god.
Jesse do this!
Jesse take that down!
Jesse you suck!
Jesse you hurt my feeeellllinggggsssss! you stealth clinton slime!
Jesse you refuse to bend to our relentlesss howls! Die die!
Jesse your endless refusal to submit to my agression is insulting to meeeeeeeeee!!!
Me me me!
Me! **I** am a sensible person therefore all my positions I ever take are sensible, and not affected by groupthink, emotion or sales pitches in any way! Me! Me! Jesse you need to SUBMIT TO MEEEE!
Aggression is such fun, and oh so self-reinforcing. Whee, what fun! Outrage! He insulted me/ mine! Attack attack! HE MUST BE REFUTED!! MOBBED!!!!
BURN HIM!!
Is everyone here fourteen? Honestly, who brings these people up? Do you even *have* parents?
Yall learn some shame. (Yes, yes we can all can hear you, "NO I WONT I WONT YOU CANT MAKE MEEEEEEEEEEEE....")
palamedes yuo miss the point that a lot of us are makeing...jesse has done nothing but attack obama on lies (claimes that the substance is not there, or that we don't know it. while he has ignored very lagitamit reasons to not vote for hillary ever.
he brought this on himself by banning a community member for speaking the truth about clinton(some clintonists took ofense to anyone pointin out that hillary isn't a liberal..in fact she is a republican in dem clothing).
the fact is FISA has proven everything I have stated, everything that tanbark has stated true.
not one hillary suport can refute that. she is a republican in every thing but name...so i guess I can stand with jesse I will vote for a democrat in november...unfortuanitly there is only one in the race.
hey zed how is anything that jesse has done stealth clinton.
when has he talked about any of her real negatives....or any of obamas positives.
he jsut dosn't do it ever.
i guess hes being fair and balanced.
Smart is NOT the same as CULT!
Charismatic is NOT the same as CULT!
Obama is both smart and charismatic, and we should hope to have a Presidential candidate who is both.
I think it is misguided to think that just because Obama can string together good sentences, is thoughtful and compelling in what he has to say, and draws people from 'both sides of the aisle' -- and to equate that rare confluence of gifts with "cult." I would prefer a smart, charismatic candidate to Kerry, for example, who is very smart but lacks the fight and charisma that Obama brings to the national stage.
I hope to see Obama in the oval office.
Thank you for this honest report. I went to one of those rallies, and got the same creepy feeling.
I am afraid we'll be watching the McCain Inauguration in January of Oh-Nine.
hey zed how is anything that jesse has done stealth clinton
So now youre just flat calling him a liar?
In his house.
Dude what is your damage. Seriously.
It's a cult and all executive leaders feed a cult and need one in order to rule. But it's no big deal. He can't Jim Jones us.
OK, I'm speaking as a Brit here, one who was rooting for Edwards and is now leaning towards Obama, simply because I believe Hillary is better off in the Senate where her policy nous will serve you guys (and by extension the rest of us) better.
Having said that, I'm surprised at the level of vitriol being expressed here. You need only look at Hillary's domestic policy to see that she's no DINO - and while she triangulated herself into a corner with her support for military action in Iraq, I think some people are being wilfully obtuse and forgetting not just how the national view was presented as in support of that action at that time, but also how the Republicans were if not in ascendancy, then definitely still on a high plateau in 2003. Anyone who expressed opposition would be (and were) vilified in the press as unpatriotic and exhibiting "pre-9/11 thinking" (remember that one?), and given the media's vitriol towards anything Clinton at the time, she would have been put through the meatgrinder in ways that just don't bear thinking about.
But back to the furore over Jesse's original article, I think that those saying he's basically a stealth Hillary supporter are definitely rushing to judge based on their own gut instincts. Bill Clinton disappointed so many progressives who believed in him totally and utterly that it harmed the campaign of his Vice-President - to the extent that the Supreme Court were able to install George W. Bush as President and helped lead to the mess we find ourselves in now. Imagine if Obama were to disappoint in the same way with similar results - you could be looking at a Jeb Bush win in 4 or 8 years time, and we can't afford that as human beings, let alone as progessives.
We need to keep our eyes on the prize folks, and that prize is a Democratic President and as many progressive politicians in Congress as we can muster. Everything else is just a sideshow.
zed, yup thats exactly what i am doing..said it a few times now...perhapse he hasn't come to terms with his clinton love yet, but for those of us who have read docs stuff for a long time (both here and in post at the old place) it is rather clear that he is pushing hillary rather heavly...all of his posts are positive hillary or negative obama...every single one. Now understand he is a recovering authoritarian him sel, which explanes her clinton love she style is high in those catagories...
funny calling obama a cult, he runs a concenious based leadership form the top down...very much about empowering the organization..she runs a strict top down authoritarian campaign where loyalty is respected above all else.
Oh and this is my house as well. I don't think any one here would decline me the right of that claim.
i long for the day taht clinton drops or is pushed out so we can be done with all of these clinton trolls
thanks for stopeing by zed
palamedes how exactly are those blue dog hillary supporters working out for us anyway.
JPsy If i had my way, clinton and every other third way blue dog democrat would be kicked ot the curb....so no we are not better off with her in the senate...no more then w are better off with libermen
why is it ok to call for the end of the blue dog peons and not their leaders?
yup thats exactly what i am doing..said it a few times now...
Pooping in someone else's parlor does not make thereafter make it "your house". Really, ask anyone.
zed this isn't some one else parlor.
now you are just makeing yourself look silly and thats my job dammit.
oh did you send money to hillary...hope you like the junk mail and cold calls
she sold you out for 80k
Moonglum that's not true - Lieberman has a irrevocable personal attachment to Israel and the Neocon strategy in a way that Clinton does not. Getting progressive results in today's globalised world where personal or corporate gain no matter the cost is a given is something that takes time and slow, incremental change.
Giving up when the rate of change doesn't suit our own personal desires is a considerable part of what caused the hard-right regressive swing that we've all suffered from since 2000. If we cede ground to the regressives because we're waiting for the Messiah candidate who will make everything better then we're as guilty of fiddling while Rome burns as Nero's spiritual heir Dubya.
lets assume 200k doners..not sure if that number is acurate, just pulling out of my ass. that means your privacy was worth exactly $2.50 to the clintons
JPsy my problem is that the change is in the wrong direction...how is forcing FISA a progressive thing. how is bancrupcy bill a progressive action
Moonglum, the balance of power is shifted so far to the right at present that the best we can hope for is to slow the rot - we can't even begin to think about reversing it until it's halted, and that takes time.
Do any of you recall these article that Jesse posted last month?. What do you think of his opinion there?
Zed, I never said your mother was a whore, I just implied that she accepts money for sex.
And I certainly never said she was a prostitute, just that she hangs out on street corners, waiting to meet men.
Does that offend you? Damn straight it should.
Just like calling people who have spent time and energy getting excited by a candidate for president "cultists."
Glazed eyes...
Looking "high"...
Don't know anything...
Just mouthpieces...
Repeating mantras...
Blind allegiance...
Religous fervor...
BUT, I never said cult!
Oh wait, yes I did... in the title...
May I say here what bugs me about the "cult" thing on this particular site? See, I've checked in every now and then since we lost Steve G., and one of those times I checked in, there was something up about Scientology. And along with this post was some plea saying, please, please, please nobody call Scientology a "cult" on this website, because it has a very specific meaning and they get all mad about it. And they have lawyers.
I almost wrote this place off after that.
So calling Obama's followers a cult is okay. Scientology, though? Got to play nice. Sorry to be so pissy about it, guys, but that's pretty feeble.
"They made the press wait outside in 40 degree cold in the wind for an hour before letting us in to searches and more waiting around, showing of press credentials and signing in."
part of the reason Bush "won" in 2000 is that he knew how to treat the pampered kool kids in the korporate media: serve them lobster ravioli, etc.
If this is how the Obama campaign treats the media then the korporate media are going to turn on him with a vengence.
According to the article they treated the MSM just fine - it was the bloggers and netroots' folks treatment that left something to be desired...
There are some bloggers who I can identify long before I get to the bottom of a post or comment and see the byline.
For example, LM's use of language is so distinctive that I recognize it in the first souple of paragraphs. Driftglass was another example, back in the days of the old News Blog.
In this case, I knew who had written the post within the first two paragraphs, but it wasn't due to recognizing a distinctive writing style, it was by recognizing the attitude.
And that, unlike the former two examples, is not a good thing.
I hate try pouring a little fire extinguisher on this lovely display of intra-party acrimony. The way some people in here are going at it, the next logical step is hand grenades at five paces. Jeeze.
But has anyone here present managed to spare some time to nip over to Orcinus to see Sara Robinson's analysis? No?
Here's the link: The Cult of Obama. Read and ponder.
I'll give you a teaser. She lists out a set of characteristic cult behaviors that has some standing amongst people who actually analyze this stuff, rather than just throwing words around like brickbats.
Here they are:
1. internal control
2. external control
3. wisdom or knowledge claimed by leaders
4. wisdom or knowledge credited to leaders
5. dogma
6. recruiting
7. front groups
8. wealth
9. sexual manipulation
10. sexual favoritism
11. censorship
12. isolation
13. dropout control
14. violence
15. paranoia
16. grimness
17. surrender of will
18. hypocrisy
How many of these are in actual evidence in the "cult of Obama"? Really?
If the group under study does not honestly exhibit high scores on at least 10 to 12 of these, the term "cult" just doesn't stick.
Obama supporters who continue to insult others here and at other blogs:
You will do your candidate a huge favor by putting a stop to your attitude. Seriously, how can you NOT see that you're only hurting your own?
Jesse was writing an article based on what he observed at two rallies. This, incidentally, is what I have observed based on what I have seen on TV--never have, and never intend to attend either candidates' rallies.
It is a fact that NOT ALL Obama supporters fit into the mold (so to speak) described in Jesse's blog. But then again, Jesse was not composing a piece on an analysis of EVERY SINGLE one of you Obama people. His piece, to repeat it again, was merely an observation of what he saw. And if you want to infer anything else from that (and actually Jesse says this in his own manner), it is that Democrats need to be careful about slipping into a "cult of personality" mentality. This is a very dangerous thing. You only need look at the past 100 years of history to see where it may lead.
If you are NOT the type that Jesse describes based on observation, then don't take offense. After all, if you have chosen your candidate based on his platform not his personality, then it's unlikely you will be getting bit by the "cult of personality" bug. You're safe. You're OK. Be proud. And make sure you do your best not to let others around you catch the bug. That's all. That was Jesse's point, as far as I'm concerned.
You want to prove your critics wrong? Then go and push your candidate to start talking about his platform IN DETAIL AND IN HIS RALLIES. Promises of change are not enough. And, unfortunately, you must recognize that most people WILL NOT finish a day at the rally by going to his website to read the platform points he doesn't discuss in the rallies. People are either lazy, or just simply don't have the time or energy to read and compare platforms. That is why it's imperative that candidates talk about their proposals within a rally. Which reminds me to add, rallies ARE NOT supposed to be just pep rallies, but information sessions. Seriously, you do know that, right??
Is it boring to talk about points of a platform? Perhaps. Depends on what bores you. But guess what? Politics is not intended to be a means of entertainment (unless you watch UK House of Commons brawls. lol). It is supposed to be serious business, which more often than not will get boring. If "boring stuff" is not your cup of tea, then I guess you need to continue to look for something that better fits your style. But don't just dismiss the seriousness of the business why coming with a "but inspiration is better and more interesting" type of arguments.
BTW, get ready to hear some dirt about Obama. He's no saint. You will be seriously disappointed (and perhaps angered) when you find out what type of politician he's been in the past. Hillary Clinton will look like a lesser evil compared. Just a warning to brace yourselves for what's coming, since more likely than not, he WILL get the nomination.
Peace.
zed? Finally, I understand.
Wow.
What an "educational" thread!
I didn't know this was a Daycare.
Jesus on a pogo-stick ... GOP trolls will be giggling & fapping to this stuff for WEEKS.
Nice infighting, kids.
Thought maybe by now you'd've had enough of Republican rule by 2008 to start growing up for real, but I was plainly dead wrong. Right back to doing the bad guys' job for them.
Keep up the bad blood, & by Nov. it really WON'T matter who they have to fight.
How totally sad.
I hope you can REALLY get your act together in 9 months. That's about 10,000 years in political-time, by the way.
Good bloody luck.
JPsy see i guess thats where we disagree i don't see slower acceleration as a move in the right direction
Wow,
After reading Sara's post I see how it should be done. I really wish Jesse had chosen his words more carefully.
former Edwards supporter here, and long before that a Dean supporter, and I WILL vote for the Democratic nominee in November
I didn't vote in the Maryland primary, and part of the reason is the attitude of some of Obama's supporters (and yes the whiff of "cult" does cling to his campaign). It really is telling that some of you think that Jesse is personally attacking you.
F. Jolly: "Three weeks ago I told myself that what Mr. Obama reminds me of is a televangelist."
Very interesting observation.
I previously left this comment over at Driftglass' joint:
"I fear we are being set up for failure, again.
First the korporate media made sure that Edwards' message didn't get out.
Then the korporate media puffs up Obama and never misses a chance to hit Hillary.
If Obama gets the nomination the korporate media will turn on him, and he will soon find out that John McCain is no Alan Keyes.
And if somehow Obama gets elected then we're stuck with his "Hello Kitty" style of bipartisanship. Well fuck that, I want to reach across the aisle with a rusty chainsaw!
BUT I will be voting for the Democratic nominee this fall."
However, Obama's recent comments on McCain is starting to make me think that Obama does know how to throw a punch against a ReThug.
Gay Vet he beat daly and the chicago machien twice...you can't do that without knwoign how to throw a punch...he can diliver teh ebat down and still coem out smellign liek roses
Jesse:
Sara did it right, you did it wrong.
Too bad. Some people just know how to write an article like a professional. Clearly you are not one of them.
But Moonglum, slow change is the best that we can hope for. There is no magic bullet to take down the entrenched corporate privilege power structure and it's a slow process.
What happens if Obama disappoints you over the next 4-8 years? You going to throw your toys out of the pram, sit it out and give the Republicans an in again?
Make no mistake, this isn't Hollywood where a charismatic character can turn the situation around, progressive policies are installed in one fell swoop and we all go for ice-cream and soda by the and of the last reel.
If you think he's going to be the agent of fast progressive policies like single-payer health care, tearing up NAFTA and pulling the troops out of Iraq and Afghanistan immediately you are going to be sorely disappointed.
Shorter Jesse:
I am a NATIONAL BLOGGER! I will NOT be IGNORED!
Color me unimpressed with this "analysis."
How can Obama supporters not be insulted when we're referred to as being cult-like, or reminiscent of Bush supporters. There is a lot of negative references that comes with those two comparisons. It is an attack. No need for any disclaimers here.
It would be another thing altogether if we were compared to Deaniacs or a group that actually shared our political view points.
How can non-Obama lovers be anything but turned off by the absolute vitriol thrown at us non-believers?
Seriously, after the past two weeks around the Blogosphere I will vote on November 4 (1st Tues in Nov, right?) but thats it.
Someone whose work we all know tells us how he felt about the two different rallies, and everyone reacts like he set their favorite puppy on fire, blech.
moonglum,
you wrote:
Gay Vet he beat daly and the chicago machien twice...you can't do that without knwoign how to throw a punch...he can diliver teh ebat down and still coem out smellign liek roses
please clarify. I think one you refer to is the Dem primary for senate...what's the other one?
"But has anyone here present managed to spare some time to nip over to Orcinus to see Sara Robinson's analysis?"
New to this thread, but I have. Sara's article in response to Jesse should be cross posted here. Jesse's clumsy characterization of Obama supporters has left a lot of ill will on this blog. Although I appreciate HS's gentlemanly motivation to let things blow over, Sara's well-written and fair Orcinus post would give us a more balanced and fact-based foundation on which to clear the air on this cult nonsense than this polluted thread.
Obama is being promoted as the black Kennedy. In fact most of the Kennedy family (but not all) is supporting him. But, folks, I'm old enough to remember: JFK was NOT a good President. He waffled on civil rights, got us started down the road to Vietnam (and doubtless would have immersed us in the quagmire had he lived) and was pretty much ineffective. He is remembered fondly principally because of his charisma and that would have worn off fast had he served out his full term and been reelected to a second term. It was Lee Harvey Oswald who insured JFK a revered place in our history.
Would Obama be ineffective, waffling, stumbling in world affairs? Who knows? But buying charisma instead of firm policy is a poor purchase.
If he's nominated, I'll vote for him before I'll vote for "100 years in Iraq" McCain. But I won't join the cult and drink the Kool-Aid; I'll vote for him because he's not a member of the party that got us into this mess.
I grew up with JFK, RFK, MLK...I loved being proud of my country and what it could inspire me to do.
It's a shame that we have a new generational leader that instills that same sense of possibility and the elders feel compelled to knock it down in the name of *realism*.
Bah.
The domestic job of our President is very limited to proposing agendas and convincing folks they are the correct path for the nation. Obama's plus is that he can bypass a recalcitrant Congress by going directly to the people. The hard right did it with the Schiavo case, why can't the liberals do it with our agenda?
Obama would excel at the one job our country so sorely needs...real leadership.
Obama regularly speaks to not being able to make change in our politics alone, that we can't go back to sitting on the couch complaining...he speaks to black congregations about addressing their homophobia...he speaks of parents having to parent, turn off the TV, video games, regenerate pride in excellence. He speaks to the auto industry in Detroit about them having to take responsibility for producing crappy, inefficient products. He has a habit of actually speaking truth to power.
He has substance. You likely won't hear it if you have your thumbs stuck in your ears singing la la la la la...
Outside of that, great blog. National level journalism indeed. ;0
Great. This is just fucking great. The Rethug Smear Machine now has this meme and they're running with it.
Dave Neiwert has a writeup at Orcinus: Obama equals Hitler. It's on talk radio now, and nickels to donuts it'll show up on the pundit's teleprompters shortly.
Dammit, Jesse. We DO NOT need to SUGGEST new lines of bullshit for these people to propagate.
I wouldn't worry about the noise machine Stormcrow. Any Dem is bound to face it in some manner or another, and now's probably a better time than later.
If anyone wants to try to lead the free world, they are going to get fire.
Let's see how the young man handles it before we panic. I like his chances.
Holy Christ, can we stop throwing the fact that Clinton initially voted for the war out there as some sort of indictment against her?
Changing one's mind in light of new evidence is not waffling. It's called a reasoned, scientific approach.
Science. It works, bitches!
Brian--yeah, she's clearly learned her lesson, as evinced by her Iran vote. The warmonger charge is hysterical and dumb but she sure ain't brave as a legislator.
Anybody who's passionate about either candidate has to be a little punch-drunk from the Bush years. They're both profoundly flawed (just like, oh, let's say everyone who ever ran or will run for president), and if you can't recognize that, maybe you could use a little less inspiration. You don't wear it well.
Brian, I do believe Sen. Clinton is between a hard spot and a rock. She absolutely has to claim her 35 years of experience in order to be a credible candidate, but when she does that, she opens up 35 years of *experience*.
Since 70-80% of the country wants out of Iraq, her war vote will necessarily be examined. As will her no vote on the Levin amendment. As will her Kyl-Liebermann vote for Iran.
To her Iraq war vote there were 23 (21 Dems, 1 Rep, 1 Ind) who voted against the Iran authorization. There were 29 Dems who voted for it. That should show thinking was indeed split even given the supposedly faulty information HRC claims she relied on at the time.
On October 11, 2002 the NY Times does a rundown on who voted for or against and some of their reasoning. Interesting reading with hindsight.
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/ful...n=&
pagewanted=1
Time magazine did an Sept 8, 2002 issue on the pros and cons of invading. The content is very instructive about the mood of both the public and our elected ones.
http://www.time.com/time/covers/...ers/1101020916/
The point is that her vote was not a slam dunk as she would have us remember sentiments at the time. She unbelievably admitted not reading the NIE report, opening herself up to even worse scrutiny.
Again, she's in a tough spot. Having to run on your experience necessitates looking at that experience.
tamens out side of soem hash slung at hillary trolls(gray and zed...not supporters, trolls) all of our vitriol has been directed at hillary.
Brian she has publicly stated that she ahsn't changed her mind...moreover her iran vote shows that she hasn't changed her mind.
redrabbit he beat the machine when he was runnign for the state senate as well. lost to them once when he ran for a seat in the house. ran ageinst teh chicago machin three times. Ithink he knows dirty politics
"..the mass media which as we all know is in the bag for the Republicans,..."
A little tongue in cheek there?
moonglum,
you're throwing out a red herring. Obama never beat "the machine."
When he won the state senate seat, he didn't win an electoral victory over any candidate. He successfully challenged the petitions of his two chief rivals, forcing them out of the race. Not exactly the mark of a politician who wants to have free and open discussion on the issues.
When he ran against Bobby Rush, the "machine" didn't have to lift a finger. Barack had his head handed to him. I live in this neighborhood. The love he was feeling was coming from a small core of white elites attached to the Univ. of Chicago. Everybody else wasn't feelin' it.
When he ran for his current Senate seat, there were 6 other candidates in the primary, in which Mayor Daley remained neutral. The frontrunner, Blair Hull, dropped drastically in the polls after his divorce papers were unsealed, and he admitted abusing his ex-wife.
The "machine" as you're describing it doesn't exist anymore.
But if your claim that Barack knows dirty politics insinuates that there's something more than coincidence in the untimely unsealing of divorce papers for Hull and ultimately Jack Ryan, too, than do tell.
Sorry, you did not have a good experience at the Obama rally in Seattle. I was not there but if you felt mistreated, I would like to apologize in behalf of the Obama campaign. Keep in mind that it is easier to do logistics for a rally of 3500 than for one with 20,000 people.
There is no cult of personality. Obama has repeatedly said that the campaign is not about him but about us. He is empowering us to be better people in the same way that Werner did with est.
I wonder how many people on this blog ever had any personal experience with Werner or have done the training. In fact, the comparison between Obama and Werner Erhard is very appropriate.
Both men gave devoted their lives to having people experience their own power. Both men have made enormous contributions to the world around them. Both are great men whose contributions will be remembered long after the lies and distortions have faded away.
"Yes, We Can... Yes, we can". That sound like Jim Jones inspiring people to follow him to paradise in Guyana. No, I won't... No, I won't vote for Barack Hussein Obama. I am a lifelong Democrat for Hillary Clinton, but if Obama's cult of personality carries him to the Democratic nomination, I will become a DeMcCain.
Barack Obama has the audacity to say he gets all of Hillary Clinton's voters but she doen't get all of his voters. I know dozens of Hillary voters that were fine with Edwards but will switch to McCain if the Obama folks whine about Superdelegates and guilt the party into nominating the first-term Senator. Obama gets Independents and some Republicans but loses some Democrats. Whenever you have an open primary Independents and Republicans infect the process and skew the electorate to result in the Democratic nominee being the weaker candidate, Obama.
Why is it everyone says Hillary voted for the war, like she was the only one and she made it happen! She said with the info she was given and the other Dems and Rep that is how they voted, so get over it, my god 1 persons vote does not send in the tropps... and if Lord Obama had been in the Senate at that time he would have voted for it to, the nation was in a patriotic fervor and God help whomever voted against the invasion of IRAQ!
I to have had a felling about Obama, not because of his religion, or race, it was the people and the way they reacted to him! He speaks well but is no Martin Luther, Jfk or anyone else.. so please stop comparing him to one! I was around for the later they were great men. Jfk even did a militsry build up that almost lead to a nuclear reaction to russian missles in Cuba... and Obama has not done anthing as deep as King dying for a cause!! I am sorry but Obama did work for the poor in Chicage, he was hired by a person who is now going to trial Feb 28 for fraud and money laundering., and later will be tried by the feds....Obama admits bonehead mistake dealing with him! hE CUT MONEY FROM CHILDRENS HEALTH PROGRAMS IN Il, then says he meant to vote against and wanted it noted in the minutes, playing both sides? Is he going to do alot of Present voting when president? No he will have to decide to back... personally I am a life long Democrat who will vote Republicain if Obama runs and so are 20others I have talked with in the last 3 weeks and they are going to talk to other disallusions, disenfranchised Dems... remember Obama say experience is nothing, that is all older people bring to the table, we wanted to make sure people did not make the mistakes we made... but Obama does not want hear it..
Hillary or McCain 2008
Hillary or McCain 2008
Democrates if u are disenfranchised from the party vote Republican then they will see our dissatifaction.... the Dems are afraid Florida and Michigan may not vote but I think in the end their votes will be counted ot the party loses more that the presidency!
(Note: This cross-thread comment is to all major comment political threads currently open. --jwe)
Everyone, LISTEN UP...
Stop accusing each other of lying. Stop calling each other names.
Right now.
I'm not playing games. I'm not fooling around.
I will start tossing people off this board, and I don't give a hoot how many of you go. THIS CRAP STOPS NOW.
We will have a safe space here without personal attacks if I have to personally ban half of you.
A full post on this will show up eventually. Till then, KNOCK IT OFF.
I refuse to be the bad guy who walks around with a big stick keeping discipline. It isn't my nature and makes me cranky.
I expect everyone to behave as you would if you were talking to someone's mother... Be polite. Be nice. Be professional. Feel free to attack ideas. Attack people and you are GONE.
THIS IS A WARNING TO EVERYONE. It is NOT directed at any one person or any one offense. Ignore what I'm saying at your own risk. Give me any crap about this at your own risk.
GNB from day one has been designed to be a safe space. During primary season, things have got out of hand. That stops right now. It is safe here and it is going to stay that way. If someone attacks you, leave it alone. Feel free to briefly and without attacking them, point out they are attacking you personally and we don't do that here, but do NOT attack them back or both of you will get tossed. "Inciting to riot is not an excuse to riot." Don't get suckered into throwing the second punch.
We bloggers won't catch everyone every time because we can't see everything, and as I say, we're not in the business of being enforcers. But if someone is recurrently making personal attacks, we'll catch them. If not that time, eventually. Do not participate, including don't keep writing "personal attack, personal attack, personal attack, personal attack." Let them be the bad actor, not you.
Someone is going to test us on this. Obviously some fool will come in and do it. That's fine. But some regular will do it just because that's who they are, or even some regular will forget him or her self and test us. We'll miss them; for about ten minutes.
What happened this week where a blogger was attacked (in this case, me but it could have been any of us because you never truly know when you're going to write the post which brings the storm down on you) and where in the threads, some of you continue to bash each other over which candidates you support, calling each other liars and other names, casting aspersions on each other based on where people come from.... all that is never, ever, ever happening again. We are all going to be nice to each other at GNB. If you want to attack people, there are plenty of boards where that is acceptable. This is not one of them.
Again, a post on all this will show up eventually. Till you get full details, be nice. Pretend you're talking to someone's mother. Argue ideas... do not attack someone personally. Don't even come close.
To the author of this blog-
Of course it's a cult. All three have their own cult of personality they are trying to propagate.
You get to Pole Position with inspiration.
Once he's in the seat he'll change his rhetoric to the specifics. He obviously knows how to win. Besides, his t-shirts are so superior. Hop on board! Whooooo-hooooooooooooo
As a lifelong Democrat I look forward to seeing John McCain win 40 states in the fall. Democrats always run left-wing insurgent candidates like McGovern and Mondale or boring professor-types like Dukakis and Gore. John Kerry was better on paper than on the campaign trail. Remember the "Lambert Field" comment in Wisconsin. I'm shocked he carried the state. Obama has left-wing radicals and blacks in his corner, no Reagan Democrats and blue collar middle class whites, no real strength with Latinos and Asians. Essentially, Obama has people who will already vote Democratic and have nowhere to go, unless Nader runs. Hillary Clinton is winning all the large states and if Obama is the nominee, these states will be in the McCain column (i.e. New Jersey, Pennsylvania, New Mexico). Actually, I think California and Minnesota are in play in a McCain-Obama matchup.
Uh... a "safe space"?!?
What the hell does that mean? Do we all cluster up for group hugs now?
Jesus, jesse, this is a forum, NOT a "time out" zone or "nappy time" space.
Gilly was ALL about tearing it up and stirring controversy, but he never went on the attack without good reason, or being able to defend himself and take hard knocks.
Are we all going to start wearing crystals, too?
Democrats For McCain are called "DeMcCains". The DeMcCains in Minnesota will turn Minnesota Red in November. Sorry, Obama... you're the black candidate and the white liberal elite candidate. Let's see how moderate Democrats, Latinos, Asians, and White women vote in the fall. John McCain.
It looks like the "Obama Cult" will prevail and face John McCain. How many more staged faintings will occurr on the campaing trail between now and November? I guess we'll just have to watch the polls and see if we hear any specifics from Obama.
How Barack Obama Can Move Beyond "Cult" & "Messiah" Charges
It all reminds me of the episode of "Doctor Who" in which Martha and Jack admit that they both voted for Harold Saxon, who turns out to actually be an evil space alien in an assumed human form. When The Doctor asks why they voted for Saxon, Martha and Jack admit they don't know. He presses for some stand he took, some policy he was promoting, anything specific. Nothing. He just make them feel hopeful.
Now, I don't seriously think Obama is an evil time-traveling space alien, but there's something profoundly disturbing about people who want to put a man in power because he makes them feel good, when they can't name a single policy of his.
Oh, I need to add -- Saxon got votes by transmitting thought contol through people's cell phones. Not sure how Obama does it.
Obama is becoming more of a cult
personality than a politican. His
immense popularity is 'unhealthy' and
something fearful about it. Throughout
the history popular cult figures were
either assasinated or overthrown.
But I feel there is something about
Obama that will be remembered in
history that is fearful and tragic.
I hope I'm mistaken.
I agree with Jesse Wendel's blog and especially with the comment from Cristino (10.28.2008 @4:33pm). Today is November 5th 2008 and yesterday the country had chosen B.Obama to be our 44th president. I hope that we are wrong and Obama will make a good president, but at this time I remain very skeptical. It seems like we cant just have to go from one extreme to another (became super "right" after 9/11 and super "left" during this election. Extremes are always bad, no matter what side you go to. Analyze what happened, put emotions aside and stay cool, thing logically, choose the best course of actions and act accordingly. This year it really became somewhat Obama's cult. People are full of emotions (both anger and rage). They want to punish republicans and they put "all the eggs in the same (democrat's) basket. But at the end, we do not punish republicans or award democrats. We make decisions about our future and we'll have to live with decisions that we just made. I hope we made the right decision, otherwise, we may have to pay a very heavy price at the end...
N.
"Barack Obama, Superhero?"
I just saw this on the front page of MSN... I think that it would even be a bit to obvious for Kim Jong Il.
Sighhhh... Here we go agian...
http://video.msn.com/?mkt=en-us&...=m137&
gt1=42007
As if the creepy "hope" & "change" soviet style progaganda pictures wern't a dead give away. Do a little research on the history of Communism... how it came to be. Those who don't learn from the past are doomed to repeat it over and over and over again.
To sum it up for you, a country has a half way decent government in place and falls in a slump... and then... then a god-like, super hero comes along to save the day. He can do no wrong. Even when everyone is starving to death or being taken out in the middle of the night for not supporting his every word... he can do no wrong. It's happened over and over, all throughout history, again and again and again.
On second thought, I do think those are kind of nice posters though. I wonder what "Bo" the white house dog had for lunch today? I think I'll go read about it on MSN. The People's Democratic Republic of the United States of America is strongest Nation in land! We will crush all who oppose great nation of Americas! All hail greatest leader of great American Nation Barack Hussain Obama! (yea, that's it).
gyuo
obama is the shit. he got is own nike
Commenting by HaloScan
