Obama’s Just Not That Fun
I have been in a genuine struggle over the past several months to put my finger on the reasons for my decreasing hope in Obama’s campaign. What is wrong with me? Am I just hopelessly hopeless? One friend dismissively suggested that I’m “just a system guy.” But, I don’t think that’s it. I don’t wear Che Guevara t-shirts and stockpile guns in my basement telling people to get ready for “The Revolution.” I don’t watch Fight Club wishing “real life” could be like it is in the movies. And my knee-jerk belief in the power of hippies, communes, folk songs, and peace festivals to change the world is about as fervent as my faith in the “Care Bear Stare” (which is not the same as saying that it is non-existent). So, what’s wrong with me? I think it has something to do with the fact that Obama’s political rhetoric sounds too much like the saccharine self-help sermonizing I wrote about in a previous blog post.
Andre Willis wrote about this foreboding aspect of Obama’s rhetoric on The Root.com back in March: “[Obama] mirrors the pluralistic temperament and contemporary appeal of best-selling author Rev. Joel Osteen, who preaches a “watered down” theological approach to spirituality sometimes referred to as Christianity-lite. He also echoes Oprah Winfrey, who promotes a popular and pluralistic “new-age” spiritual conception where Christian notions of charity are emphasized in a very public way. Because Obama’s method highlights the spiritual dimensions of human beings, it is ultimately a religious conception of democracy that is motivated by political interests… It remains to be seen if Senator Obama can engender the spiritual fortitude required to guide an obsessively forward-looking constituency through a history they so want to deny. If he cannot, his implicit appeal to religious types of change, belief and hope might dampen the possibility that America will ever move beyond its past.”
Last month’s issue of Esquire contains a provocative article which suggests Obama is, in fact, failing to “engender the spiritual fortitude” Willis hoped he would. Charles Pierce says that his skepticism stems from the fact that Obama is gaining votes on the cheap by telling a guilty and sinful people that deep down it is really a beautiful flower waiting to bloom. In offering “absolution without confession,” he’s preaching the prosperity gospel of politics: Forget about your laziness, xenophobia, short-tempered imprudence, profligate lifestyle, ill-founded self-confidence, ignorance with regard to history, geography, science, math, and every other subject you should have learned in school. You deserve to be well-liked, prosperous, and full of hope and joy. True, there have been moments of blunt honesty. His Philadelphia speech in response to the Rev. Wright controversy spoke many powerful and stark truths about race in America, but the tone remained largely self-congratulatory (one shared by many of Obama’s supporters) with regard to America’s “genius,” “achievement,” and “hope.” Maybe you can’t be prophetic and presidential, but does the rhetorical bar really need to be set at the level of Stuart Smalley: “You’re good enough; you’re smart enough; and doggone it, people like you!”
So, maybe my problem is that I haven’t been able to bring myself to put on that pale-blue sweater and look into the mirror of groundless self-affirmation that Obama keeps holding up to an America addicted to feeling good about itself. But it’s not all Obama’s fault. Obama certainly has the chops to deliver solid food to American voters. An article in today’s New York Times tells us, “As a [University of Chicago law] professor, students say, Mr. Obama was in the business of complication, showing that even the best-reasoned rules have unintended consequences, that competing legal interests cannot always be resolved, that a rule that promotes justice in one case can be unfair in the next.” But when all the American people want to eat is candy, what’s a politician to do? Let them eat cake! As the Times reports, “Even some former students who are thrilled at Mr. Obama’s success wince when they hear him speaking like the politician he has so fully become. ‘When you hear him talking about issues, it’s at a level so much simpler than the one he’s capable of,’ [former student, Byron] Rodriguez said. ‘He was a lot more fun to listen to back then.’” I think that is my problem with Obama: He’s just not that fun anymore.
Amen!!! Obama is basking in rock-star status, causing the rest of us to scratch our heads wondering if we really have a working executive here willing to take on the rigors of the White House. At least with McCain we have a proven track record.
Is there any religious component to this election at all? Any endorsement of the plurality of christianity that we still have in our country? Obamas profession of christianity is about as thin as a news item I heard today. In Japan, imposter priests are being hired to marry young Japanese who want all the trappings of a Western wedding because they reject Shintoism. However, they just want the trappings and have no intention of going on with the Chrisitan religion. How thin is that?
For the record: Just because I have reservations about Obama, does not mean I am for McCain. While Obama may or may not be a real step forward, McCain would most certainly not be an improvement.
Gee Eric’s blog has all hope of a suicide bomber….. yet no threat to leave the country if Obama elected?
. ‘When you hear him talking about issues, it’s at a level so much simpler than the one he’s capable of,’
Does this have anything to do with the fact that Americans gave us a moron for 8 years? Perhaps he thinks he has to dumb down his rhetoric to get the American public’s attention. American’s are so used to single sound bytes repeated over and over again in so-called presidential speeches that it may just be too much for them to hear what Barak is really capable of.
“Does this have anything to do with the fact that Americans gave us a moron for 8 years?”
That is part of it. The other factor is what Jimmy Carter learned while he was campaigning and as president. Everything you say is quoted, usually out of context, and it is not easy to send the explanatory notes with it. You may coin new words as president or president to be, but you can embarrass yourself without effort.
W got lucky that he campaigned against two lousy campaigners. There was one strategy to beat Hillary and the one to defeat McCain has to be different.
Eric,
I have a number of comments, but I’ll do my best to be brief.
1) I’m not sure “you are a system guy,” in the sense that you want to rid us of our bicameral legislature and our federalist system, but rather you appear disillusioned with the process through which politicians grab our attention and, therefore, get elected. Perhaps you were at ease with Hillary because she was so clearly a partisan hack, but you feel duped by Obama’s (alleged) façade of transcending the old way of politics (a criticism I see as valid, if you believe that Obama can’t make positive strides in even nudging Washington a bit towards being productive). I think you both want the nuance that motives UChicago students and the policy agenda that looks beyond incremental change and yet are frustrated by the fact that “the (electoral) system” doesn’t encourage or incentivize either. That Obama recognizes the reality of the current political landscape and yet has at least made small changes (not taking money from PACs, shutting down allied 527s, not running the type of negative ads that Hillary did/McCain is, etc.) is important and not to be dismissed simply because it isn’t all of the change or all of the nuance you’d like. Your dislike of radical activists who don’t have a chance of changing the system through revolution actually makes my point: the system can only be altered by someone from the inside who has the power and the insight to realize the importance of the change without being so entrenched that he is too attached to the system he has benefited from. That is why Obama is no Ron Paul (and doesn’t promise a revolution), but is also the reason he is likely to succeed in making these incremental changes.
2) The comparison to Osteen seems unwarranted. Osteen (mis)represents biblical texts by suggesting that you pray a lot, you tithe your 10% (that’s before taxes), and you go to his church and you’ll enjoy prosperity on this earth well before riches elsewhere. I once visited Lakewood and heard Osteen deceive the congregation into believing their house would one day double in size after months of prayer. Obama takes a vastly different approach and is not behind the “prosperity gospel of politics.” He is optimistic, but emphasizes personal responsibility (remember Jesse Jackson wanted to sever a select body part from Obama…). He (correctly) recognizes we can pull ourselves out of the ditch we’ve been driven into and that we should and can get back on the horse (and be comforted, a bit, by the fact that even Europeans see good days for us ahead). I think the partly cloudy skies you see on the horizon with Obama (or at least that others see) appear so (unrealistically) bright because they are always contrasted with Bush/McCain.
3) Obama is plenty fun; not only does he play a mean basketball game (and have a sense of humor throwing gutter balls), but he is fun even in the sense that you allude to. He remains plenty nuanced (which leads to charges of flip flopping) and is willing to tell it how it is. Take the gas tax for example: both McCain and Hillary tried to con the public into believing that removing a $0.18/gallon gas tax would solve their problems (forgetting, of course, the gas companies could just jack up their prices). Obama knew saving $30 for the summer was not the solution middle-class Americans yearned for and that they could see right through the gimmick. While not fun to have your opponents suggesting that you are to blame for high gas prices (a sensitive subject and a charge McCain has made directly in a recent ad), Obama was right to ignore the same old usual political games and remains plenty fun, at least in the sense that you use the word.
I have so much more to say, but not the space (and definitely not the time) to do so. I’m looking forward to more back and forth soon.
Obama’s vanity and hubris are unbearable.
I suggest reading Dana Milbank’s brutal skewering of Obama: http://www.geraldnaus.com/?p=10699
I can see why one wouldn’t vote for a GOP candidate, but Obama is the liberal equivalent of a televangelist, the Benny Hinn for the Whole Foods crowd. Obama quotes:
“I have become a symbol of the possibility of America returning to our best traditions”
“I am absolutely certain that generations from now, we will be able to look back and tell our children that this was the moment when the rise of the oceans began to slow and our planet began to heal.”
A legend in his own mind.
The McCain campaign has a pretty funny ad, featuring Obama, Britney and Paris:
http://www.geraldnaus.com/?p=10701
James, you give some good and logical explanations as to why you think Obama can actually pull off what he is proposing. And I hope you are right, especially if he is elected. However, his vanity, as Gerald suggests, may be the biggest hindrance to him effecting any change at all. It was a problem for President Bush–remember the arrogance he was criticized for even down to his swagger. The current ad put out by McCain borders on sour grapes for McCain—he nedds to be careful about that image if he wants to be elected.
We have a 230 odd year history, and the system has worked for us so far. Patience and humility are key, and a willingness to go the extra mile for our great country. These are the qualities we need in a president worthy of being called “great”!
Over the past eight years the Bush-Cheney-Rove machine has done great damage to this country on virtually every front, except that of the Friends of Bush-Cheney-Rove for whom it’s been a time of profit and gain. From what I can glean McCain’s platform is not that far afield from the current administration’s. So it comes down to the choice between more of the same and something new. And even if the something new isn’t ideal, it would be hard to imagine it will (could) be worse. It’s interesting how Obama’s gone from being the golden boy, when it was a contest between him and Hillary, to being the whipping boy now that he’s the actual presumptive contender. Politics is a fickle business.
(Now that’s interesting. Gerald Naus? What happened to Gerald Augustinus, the man who ran the Catholic conservative blog “The Cafeteria Is Closed”? The blog used to be public, no? Now it’s walled off.)
On that asinine McCain ad, I suggest reading McCain’s friend and adviser John Weaver: http://marcambinder.theatlantic.com/archives/2008/07/weaver_mccains_former_strategi.php
As for Milkbank’s column, which I found unpersuasive–shocker–it was actually published by the WaPost here:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/07/29/AR2008072902068.html?hpid=topnews
Hey, maybe it’s his comfort with the intrinsic moral evil of abortion….
Yes, I know it’s not the only issue, Bush is terrible, etc., but it continues to amaze me how a Cattholic publication can comment on politics and completely ignore this elephant in the room.
I was among the first ones to complain about the Obama adoration. But it is cheap and probably partisan to compare him to Osteen. He is a serious, credible candidate who must be held accountable like any other politicians.
There is just no question that he is head and shoulders over the present White House. John McCain deserves respect because he served and has his son serve. Something that W did not do unlike his father. McCain’s hiring of Rove is a huge mistake. Karl Rove’s day is gone. He is well beyond Lincoln’s dictum that you can’t fool all the people all the time.
Is Obama in danger of becoming the presidential equivalent of the man–whose name escapes me–who defeated Joe Leiberman in the Connecticut primary for senator but then went on to lose when Leiberman ran as an independent? … likewise, Obama defeated the far-more-experienced Hillary Clinton but may struggle to win in November (most polls show him running only slightly ahead of McCain, and at least one recent poll of the most “likely” voters actually shows McCain ahead) … perhaps the Democratic party has been so hijacked by the Moveon.org, ANSWER-type radicals that it doesn’t realise how far out of the mainstream its views and values actually are.
I’m waiting for the GOP ad about how Obama not only was the only member of the Illinois state senate who couldn’t support a bill to require hospitals to save infants born alive during abortions but he also refused to go onr ecord against it–instead, he walked out of the chamber rather than vote either way. That is hardly the sort of profile in courage that Americans like in their presidents.
Or how about Michelle’s Obama’s complaints about how hard it is to make ends meet, given the $10,000 a year they must spend on ballet lessons, horseback riding lessons, etc., for their girls … that will sound pretty elitist and out-of-touch to most Americans, especially the middle-class White voters who supported Hillary and whom Obama must woo to win.
Robert: There was already a law on the Illinois books requiring that such infants receive care. The bill Obama opposed was a sham vehicle designed to create a wedge that would support future efforts to define the unborn as person recognized by the state and so requiring state protection. Obama opposed THIS effort, not the effort to provide care for born alive infants. This is now officially a tiresome accusation against Obama.
Eric: Your post reflects two of the more unfortunate tendencies of the left. First, it demonstrates a kind of misanthropy that leads one to think that those on the left really prefer complaining about other people to anything else in the world. Now, I am only saying this of the post, not of you, but it is best illustrated by
Too often, the left just seems angry at the world, and, as I have reflected on my own anger, I find that such anger often masks both a frustration at one’s inability to change things and a sense that one is being underappreciated. Again, I am psyching myself out here, but the result of such reflection has been to notice just how often a kind of self-centered anger characterizes positions on the left (Marx was a textbook case of this, and it seems to infect those who read him).
Second, you seem to desire complexity over success. I would really have liked to hear how you think Obama could be as complex as you would like him to be and still get elected president. Here again, is a sin of the Left. They would rather be right in principle than victorious in fact.
Obama is on the cusp of becoming the first black man to be elected president. This alone would make him a celebrity at any time. He defeated a Democratic icon during his first term as U.S. Senator. He is young and handsome (and, like me, he shows just how attractive big ears can be!). He is a great speaker. Lots of people like him. And these are now things we will hold against him?
Perhaps most appropos to your post, I think his central message is that the average American should get reinvested in politics. He wants people to “take back” their governments. How can he do this without sounding very encouraging of the people he addresses? How can he say, “I know you can do it” while at the same time reminding them of all of their faults?
Robert: Regarding the Obama’s money: two words – Cindy McCain.
Joe, my impression of Eric’s post is that it is satire. Your read into it may be a bit too personally serious. Also, wasn’t Marx the extreme of right, not the extreme of left. I agree about your observation of complexity vs. simplicity. Often times, the simple observation is often victorious over the complex, especially in politics. But I think just as often the opposite may be true, when dealing woth other subjects.
Grant – as to your wondering what happened to the Closed Cafeteria…it’s not walled off – I closed it :) I also put down my alter ego, he was a bastard ;) The old blog ended because I started to support gay marriage and adoption. And because, upon reading Uta Ranke-Heinemann, I started to make fun of all kinds of rules. This is why I moved to http://www.geraldnaus.com . I am just hiding out here from the Inquisition ;)
Joe:
Cindy McCain’s fortune is from a beer distributorship–the blue-collar, Reagan Democrats won’t have any problem with that! A chicken in every pot, a Bud in every hand!
Also Joe:
But did Obama walk out rather than vote on the measure–or did he vote? THAT is as much the issue as the merits of the bill itself (and since the bill was designed to establish personhoood for infants, THAT is also something that Catholics might like to know that Obama opposed). So: Did he make a tough decision–to go on record against a popular measure–or did he weasle out by leaving the chamber? From what I’ve heard, he walked out–but please correct me if I’m wrong.
To give you an example of what pushed me over the edge, here is a comment by an ‘orthodox’ Catholic:
Nice. My wife’s not amused. Of course, as someone who worked for an LGBT center, she’s familiar with homophobia (she’s a doctor of clinical psychology). She just wrote an entry on gay adoption and a Catholic agency: http://www.geraldnaus.com/?p=10703
Denise, I hope from the bottom of my heart that Eric’s piece is satire, because if it isn’t, then it seems to me to be an attempt to undermine the only hope we have against four more years of what we have now, which to my mind would be unfortunate.
Obama is similar to Chief Justice Roberts – he left as little of a paper trail as possible. He’s barely ever in the Senate. He became a senator and immediately ran for president. It’s a giant Emperor’s New Clothes scenario. Of course, Bush is one of the main reasons Obama’s simplistic ‘change’ message is successful. I’m hoping for election results that mean gridlock, a paralyzed government is the best kind.
Distributing Budweiser ought to be illegal :) Not to mention that they stole the name from the real Budweiser – or Budvar – in the Czech Republic. I’d think the American beer water known as Budweiser couldn’t be sold under that name in the EU.
How can anyone read about Obama’s family legend of being related to Wild Bill Hickock and challenging McCain to a shoot-out over taxes, and say this man is not fun? Pfui. He’s more fun than any president or presidential candidate in memory. Shall we compare him to Kerry? Dukakis? Political campaigns are, of their nature, relentlessly repetitive. One shouldn’t listen too much to the same speeches, pitched (of necessity) to the average person, and expect to be continually dazzled. As for the type of Christian spirituality the campaign traffics in, it’s up to religious leaders to raise the bar; the president is not elected to be our “minister in chief.”
Short take (I think that’s all this thread deserves):
Eric, you’re hardly hopeless- you’re just not that fun!
I seem to remeber BXVI earlier this year, praising our qualities and preaching hope. He’s not that fun either.
Before anyone goes off citing the Milbank column and Obama’s supremely hubristic quote, you might want to check out what he really said:
“It has become increasingly clear in my travel, the campaign, that the crowds, the enthusiasm, 200,000 people in Berlin, is not about me at all. It’s about America. I have become a symbol of the possibility of America returning to our best traditions.”
Further explanation here:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/07/30/iwashington-posti-fans-ou_n_115861.html
The quote has already become an urban legend, so I doubt this will register. But good to get the facts straight for the record.
Eric: If I missed the intended tone of the post, my apologies. I am a rather simplistic sort of guy, so I sometimes miss the subtlety of others.
Robert: There is a long tradition of walking out on matters that one wishes to have nothing to do with. That is how I read Obama’s action. As for the personhood of the unborn, there is a BIG difference between claiming a kind of “ontological” personhood of the unborn, something that I think many are unwilling to do up to a point — rather the unborn is a human life, and claiming personhood before the law, and thus citizenship. The consequences of claiming that the unborn are citizens are massive and far to numerous to go into here.
Both Barack and Michelle come from low-income family backgrounds. To then impugn their activities when they reflect the opportunities that come with much higher incomes, and then to see to problem with Cindy McCain’s fortune because it comes from selling beer is just bizzare.
Last thought, directed at no one on this blog, but rather at the American public in general: I think many people who are uncomfortable with the idea of a black man being president but unwilling to recognize explicitly such discomfort will latch on to any non-racial reason to vote against Obama so as to rationalize their action. I think that may have something to do with the celebrity nonsense.
If one does not like Obama’s political positions and one likes McCain’s better, one should vote for McCain. But please do not suggest that one is engaged in sound political analysis when one opposes Obama because lots of people like him.
Gerald,
Personally I wouldn’t drink a Bud unless I was stuck in the desert and the sign said nearest microbrewery is X miles away (I’m not sure what my breaking point would be …) but so long as it’s legal, more power to Cindy McC!
Joe:
The key point about Michelle Obama and money is not that she had achieved the American dream of success, but that having achieved it she was complaining (whining, actually) about how much it cost to give her daughters the best in life. THAT is unseemly, and unlikely to resonate with voters despite her less-than-privileged upbringing. Nobody likes a complainer.
As far as Cindy McCain’s money, she has it, she spends it, and she seems to enjoy spending it–what could be more American than that? (The line about her selling beer, by the way, was a joke–how ironic that in a thread about Obama not being all that “fun” someone should fail to see the humor in suggesting that beer-guzzling blue-collar workers might feel more comfortable with someone whose wife sells beer than with a former law professor whose wife whines about how much her daughters’ ballet and music lessons cost … lighten up[! After all, who would Homer Simpson vote for?
David,
Whenever someone says “it’s not about the money, it’s the principle …” you can be certain that it IS indeed about the money.
Likewise, when a politician protests that “this isn’t all about me …” it certainly is.
Obama’s greatest weakness is not just his inexperience–it’s inexperience combined with the greatest hubris since King Canute tried to stop the tide …but unlike Obama, Canute knew he could NOT prevent the waters from rising, which Obama has claimed he can do (in terms of edning global warming). Charles Krauthammer nailed Obama best wehn he noted that, like Moses, Obama plans to part the waters–but that while Moses had some help in his miracle, Obama prefers to work alone.
There’s plenty to criticize concerning both candidates. As bad as many feel President Bush was/is, at least he had been governor of Texas and had proved himself for a time. How will history judge his handling of 9/11? Anyway, we have flawed humans to choose from. Does God make any other kind? So there you have it—pick your poison and may it be the least lethal for the country. As in the Hippocratic Oath, “at least do no harm.” That’s my prayer for our future president.
Robert: Would you provide a link to the Michelle Obama story to which you refer? Perhaps I missed it while on vacation. Regarding the beer joke, my frustration was more directed at a larger public that is somehow buying into the Obama is elitist line while at the same time giving the McCain’s a pass. Both actions strike me as bizzare. I would indeed like to know who Homer Simpson would vote for; although I suspect he would somehow end up at Moe’s rather than at a polling place.
I am with you on the Bud analysis, although unfortunately I did drink some over the weekend at Cedar Point in Ohio (my first Bud in perhaps two decades). The available choices were Bud and Bud Light. Yeesh!
Joe,
The stories on Michelle Obama’s statements are too numerous to cite (and I have not been able to find the original) but just google the terms: michelle obama $10,000 music lessons zanesville (she apparently said it in Zanesville, OH) and you will find plenty of references–both from liberal and rightwing blogs … but no one (as fas as I know) has said she did not say it.
Yes, you’re probably right about where Homer would spend Election Day … by the way, I know Ceadr Point well (at least from 20 years ago, when I lived in Cleveland)
Robert,
If you can’t produce any citation, you should give the “she’s a whiner” line a rest.
A Bud and then a ride on the Millenium Force at Cedar Point.
It sounds…fatal.
Eric needs to leave Stuart Smalley alone. Stuart may be the next senator from Minnesota.
And that’s…okay.
I spent part of the weekend going door to door canvassing on Obama’s behalf in my very diverse little corner of the world. The notion that Obama is not fun is about as facile as the notion that George Bush would be more fun to have a beer with than John Kerry (even though Bush never drinks anymore).
There is no secular savior. None. Nor should there be. Perhaps this is the last, inevitable stage of mixing politics and religion, and the legacy of George Bush’s election, but people looking for the messiah should go to church and leave the messy, compromising practice of politics alone. We have two choices. There’s not room for metaphysics (on either side).
Grant,
That’s a weak argument … this is a widely reported statement (Google it, as I suggsted), so if you can show me ANYWHERE where ANYONE denies that she said it (it was apparently not covered much by the mainstream media–surprise, surprise) then I will disavow it. But I have seen no denials, no rebuttals, etc. … Here is the best reference I can find: The Washington Post’s Howard Kurtz cites Byron York from National Review:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/03/27/AR2008032700886_5.html
You can disbelieve it if you want–but it will still hurt them with the middle class.
Grant:
There you go: The Zanesville Times Recorder.com blog, from Feb 28, 2008: http://www.zanesvilletimesrecorder.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080228/BLOGS01/80228028
Where is the whining?
Having 3 kids under the age of 11, I consider most complaining to be whining–especially when you’re complaining about something like having to spend $10,000 on your kids’ extracurrciular activities when most of us don’t have that sort of extra cash lying around. The simple fact that she said it is telling–this was her way of saying timesa re tough all over, so she was either boasting (which would have been stupid) or she was complaining–in either case, it certainly won’t help Obama with the white middle class vote that he badly needs.
I don’t know how you have divined that she was complaining or boasting. What you link to is apparently a live blog of her remarks. It reads:
Robert: Based on the text provided by Grant, I think you have misrepresented Michelle Obama’s comments. She is not claiming her situation to be either middle class nor especially burdensome on her household. Rather, I take her point be simply that it is quite expensive to add depth to a child’s life given the teach to the test nature of schools.
One quick question: Are you the same Robert Reid who writes for the AP? I recently saw a Robert Reid byline on an AP article.
Wow – go away for a few days.
Although I expect Obama will win barely, it should concern the Democrats that in a year when the GOP has nominated what is probably their worst candidate (except maybe Dole) in decades, we are on the cusp of a recession, in an unpopular war, and fuel prices have skyrocketed, that their candidate is neck and neck with the Republican. This should look like an FDR Hoover race.
For all the doom and gloom, as a conservative I am encouraged about what this means long-term.
Joe and Grant:
No, I am not the AP’s Reid (though I have heard that before)
Don’t rely too hevail;y on the Zanesville blog … it was merely my attempt to find the Ur-source of the story, though I suspect it is not the only one (simply the only one I found in my search).
Google the referecnes as I sugested and you will see: regardless of whether Michelle Obama did complain or merely explain, the way that her comments are being repeated, reported, etc., come across as a complaint that won’t sit well with middle class voters–which was the point I was trying to make.
Is this another example of internet rumor misinformation (ala “Obama’s a muslim …” or “He’s unpatriotic …?”) Perhaps–but the story is out there, circulating, and it could have the detrimental effect I discussed .. THAT was my point: that Obama will be perceived as out of touch with the average voter
Consider another piece in the Wall Street Journal (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121755336096303089.html?mod=hpp_us_inside_today) that actually asks whether Obama is “too thin” to win.
As the reporter notes: “The candidate has been criticized by opponents for appearing elitist or out of touch with average Americans. A Wall Street Journal/NBC News poll conducted in July shows Sen. Obama still lags behind Republican John McCain among white men and suburban women who say they can’t relate to his background or perceived values.”
And one interviewed person actually suggests: “He’s too new … and he needs to put some meat on his bones,” says Diana Koenig, 42, a housewife in Corpus Christi, Texas, who says she voted for Sen. Hillary Clinton in the Democratic primary.
“I won’t vote for any beanpole guy,” another Clinton supporter wrote last week on a Yahoo politics message board.
THAT is what Obama must contend with … I’m not an Obama supporter, and if I were I’d probably be bothered by it too. Instead, I’m simply trying to put his problems into context and explain why–despite all the other things that should be going his way–the race remains as close as it is.
According to Fox News last night, a book is supposed to come out today on Obama, which is more truthful about his background and his ties to far left organizations. The author was on last night, and I’m sure this book is about to get a lot of press.
I have spent thousands of dollars on “enrichment” for my children. I would venture that John and Cindy McCain have too, because every other person I know who has the means (and a few who have to borrow the means) have too. Those who can’t find their children at a disadvantage when it comes to college applications and sports teams. Public schools that can fund music and art are filling a gap for these people, probably not totally, but to some degree. If you are a parent of school age children and don’t understand where Obama is coming from on this, then I have to assume that someone else is raising your children.
It’s not the enrichment–it’s the amount that they’re able to spend, an amount so very much more than most people can. As one blogger explained: “Michelle Obama complained about piano AND dance lessons in front of a crowd in Zanesville, OH where the median income of female workers is approx. $20,000.” THAT is what people found elitist and out of touch–sort of like complaining to someone who’s working hard in the hot sun, while you lounge under a beach umbrella, that your perrier wasn’t chilled properly …
Boy this thread is no fun, amnd, what’s worse, it goes on and on.
Just want to say that I’m sick of the hyposcrisy and horsepucky about “civil” ca,paigns when the name of the game is attack/counterattack.
Too much here like listening to the “best political team” (read,spin doctors) on CNN.
As opposed to the paltry expenditures of Cindy McCain, who can’t imagine getting around Arizona without a private plane? Come on Robert, there is no presidential candidate in the last 50 years except for Bill Clinton who hasn’t been affluent if not outright wealthy.
Maybe you would not believe what people are able (sort of) to spend on their children. Maybe your kids are still too young. Many people spend it even when they can barely afford it. The point is, it IS expensive to provide enrichment and people go into debt to do it. That you think it’s wrong or take glee in the latest instalment of your game of gotcha for a person who spends that money to acknowledge the reality of it is almost too sad.
We know that any book pushed on “Fixed” News (thanks, Keith …) will be objective and a worthy read to learn the truth.
… [Trackback] …
[...] Read More here: commonwealmagazine.org/blog/?p=2180…