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!"