Yes, there's an adulation component in the response to Obama

[cali]

but in and of itself, that's not a bad thing. It existed with RFK too. No, I'm not comparing him to Kennedy. I'm simply saying that this fascination/attraction isn't something to be frightened of. Perhaps it would be nice if people cooly analyzed positions down to the last jot, but they don't and they never have. And not all the folks supporting him are swept up in this fever.

Obama isn't some evil stealth corporatist tool anymore than he's some evil stealth Muslim radical. Those two are opposite sides of the same coin. His history and voting record don't support either meme.

If he becomes president will he govern as a liberal/progressive? I'm counting on it and that's due to my understanding of his history and record. Will he be effective? I think that's likely. Could I be wrong? Sure. He could turn out to be more of a centrist than I believe he is, but that would be a huge improvement over bushco or any of the pukes running. Could he be ineffective? That I doubt. He's run a pitch perfect campaign.

A lot of the worries about Obama seem to me to be inflated due to partisanship. He's not the perfect panacea, that's for sure, but he's cerebral guy with what appears to be good judgment.

So worry about his not doing enough to curb corporate power or that he won't get out of Iraq quickly enough, but worrying about his having charisma doesn't really make sense.

[Fresh_Start]

1. I'm a thinking person in a feeling world

the adulation bothers me tremendously.
Just like the adulation for Bush Jr bothered me when he was running.
I don't trust feeling decisions.

There's not a lot of difference between Obama and Clinton voting record wise.
So why one gets adulation and the other boos makes me distrust my fellow voters again....

Edwards is the most different from what we have today.

And I continue to despair over Gore not running.

[cali]

2. There wasn't adulation over bush.

there wasn't even initial enthusiasm for him in the ranks. That's revisionism- or faulty memory. I find it ironic that you hate the attention that Obama is getting but that you "despair" that Gore isn't running. That's emotional speech, not cerebral speech. In fact, your entire post is rooted in emotion not intellect. Kind of interesting. And your response to Edwards is interesting as well, considering that you appear not to like Obama's voting record (one of the most liberal in the Senate). JE was a conservative DLCer who voted for war. Yet you prefer him. Nothing wrong with that, but isn't that going largely on faith; faith that he'll live up to his rhetoric?

Sorry about the deconstruction of your post, but I think it's interesting that you wrote an emotional message with little analysis after having labeled yourself a thinking person in a feeling world.

I tend to think of myself as someone who tries to balance the intellectual and analytical with emotions and instinct.

[Fresh_Start]

3. People still adore Bush

maybe its only the 29% but they are for the man personally and not just for the party or the office.
They see greatness in him which obviously escapes us. They see him as a savior almost.

Edwards politics have clearly taken a turn to the left since he was in office. Plus he needed to represent the people who elected him and he was not elected in a state as liberal as Illinois so its not surprising that his record was less liberal than CA, NY, MA or IL.

Obama is a by no means a leading liberal: his voting record is comparable to Clintons.
He's from a liberal state so he could actually push the envelop. He's in a safe seat with a few more years in office so he didn't need to play it safe.

[cali]

4. um, no.

Edwards hasn't clearly moved to the left. He's positioned himself there, but it's impossible to know if he's sincere, as none of his words have translated into action and as he's given some signs of inconsistency. Is he sincere? Could be. Edwards co-sponsored the war. Are you suggesting he had to do so because he represented NC. That is illogical- particularly as at least two Senators from conservative states voted against the IWR.


As for your comments about bush, yes, there's a certain percentage that are still supporting him. that is not evidence that they see him as a savior or adore him. It is unrelated to the kind of reaction that Obama is eliciting.

Obama's voting record in the Senate and his record in the Illinois Senate are rated as very progressive by dozens of groups. You clearly don't want to admit it- but that's an emotional, not thinking response. In fact, you rely far more heavily on feelings in these two posts than intellect. It's interesting.

[Fresh_Start]

10. Clinton and Obama tied liberal voting record in 2006

http://www.adaction.org/2006Senatevr.htm

Clinton is reliably a social liberal with a longer voting record than Obama.

[Fresh_Start]

5. Gore is the only person virtually guaranteed a win

any other candidate is still a crap shoot.

Anyone else can still have a spectacular flop or be blindsided by GOP loyalty voting.
So while I've given up on Gore, I think he would have been the right candidate.
It wasn't an emotional decision. It was a pragmatic decision.

[Dawgs]

14. I disagree about your electability comment.

After Iowa, Obama showed us that he can bring out the people no one said he could bring out - the youth vote. Remember, the kids were still on holiday vacation when they caucased.

Also, there is no doubt that Obama will double the turnout for African-Americans, which will be a huge bump in the southern states.

These are two groups that typically don't vote, and didn't vote for Kerry or your beloved Gore(who I like by the way).

He could also bring out many Independants.

[Fresh_Start]

16. Youth vote increased in 2004 causus in Iowa

but the youth vote didn't fulfill its prophesy in the actual election.
Not to say they didn't vote but they didn't show up in accelerated numbers like the Iowa causus suggested they might.

Turns out its not the college kids that are MIA its the post-college crowd that politically MIA.

[progressivebydesign]

22. How I wish Al would run. :( n/t

[progressivebydesign]

20. Oh, there absolutely WAS TOTAL adulation for Bush...

You don't remember that?? Those adoring faces and the fawning press??? But.. he was so "likable"!!

[Skidmore]

7. I daresay there is a component of adulation for the followers of all the top three candidates.

Pick an accolade, substitute whatever name you wish, and repeat it with eyes closed.

[Fresh_Start]

12. I don't adore

But I've never been swept away by crowd psychology.

I will vote for whoever wins the nomination.
They've all hit high notes and sour notes at points in their campaign.

I don't think HRC can win it all.
I'm afraid that BO can't win it all.
I don't want another 4 years of GOP rule....unless it truly means the end of that party for the rest of time immemorial.

[Sparkly]

6. I agree any Democrat would be an improvement

The value of charisma is that it helps win elections.

"If he becomes president will he govern as a liberal/progressive? I'm counting on it and that's due to my understanding of his history and record. Will he be effective? I think that's likely. Could I be wrong? Sure. He could turn out to be more of a centrist than I believe he is, but that would be a huge improvement over bushco or any of the pukes running."

"Unity" involves compromise -- as he compromised with Republicans in Illinois. That's a way to get things done, but it's not necessarily "governing as a liberal/progressive." I think we should be ready for that.

[KennedyGuy]

8. I respect your opinions Cali..

You have been honest enough on issues regardless of the candidate..
I clearly remember the 2000 campaign..
The headlines were eerily similar..
Bush was the savior from on high..
headlines were trumpeting:
"Small crowds greet Kerry"
"people hanging from the rafters who can't wait to vote for Bush"
I hope..for all of our sakes..that this hope movement is not an illusion..
The media rarely printed a negative word about Bush..I see similar coverage currently regarding Obama..
When was the last time you saw a negative headline or TV interview regarding Obama?
keep in mind that there is a loooooong way until November, and the media will not continue its current favorability towards Obama..
One thing that will be interesting to see, is whether the youth vote will continue to show up.
Lets face it..the first two contests took place during the school break..with a lot of Illinois voters brought into Iowa.
It will be pretty hard to keep them involved.
Just my opinion..
but time will tell.

[Dawgs]

15. Yes, but who cares if Bush was adored by Republicans?

Shouldn't we be happy that we have at least one candidate that is so liked?

[cindyw]

9. My father saw JFK at an airport when he was a kid.

He said to him the way that people look at him and admire him, compares to how they saw JFK.

[Cameron27]

11. I thought this clip of JFK was

interesting. He didn't run his campaign on promises of compromise and reconciliation, quite the opposite. I know Taylor Marsh is partisan, but I think the video is worth watching:

http://www.taylormarsh.com/

/spelling

[Fresh_Start]

13. JFK was not conciliatory. Not even in his inauguration speech.

He was promising to break the mold.

[DrFunkenstein]

17. Let Us Never Fear to Negotiate

Compare it to Obama saying that Democrats shouldn't be afraid to reach out when we know who we are.

[Fresh_Start]

18. Look at the entire context.

He was addressing the USSR at the time and not the opposing party.

"Finally, to those nations who would make themselves our adversary, we offer not a pledge but a request: that both sides begin anew the quest for peace, before the dark powers of destruction unleashed by science engulf all humanity in planned or accidental self-destruction.... So let us begin anew—remembering on both sides that civility is not a sign of weakness, and sincerity is always subject to proof. Let us never negotiate out of fear. But let us never fear to negotiate." His negotiate was addressed primarily to the USSR.

I think this was the most direct message to the people of the USA. "Let the word go forth from this time and place, to friend and foe alike, that the torch has been passed to a new generation of Americans—born in this century, tempered by war, disciplined by a hard and bitter peace, proud of our ancient heritage—and unwilling to witness or permit the slow undoing of those human rights to which this Nation has always been committed, and to which we are committed today at home and around the world." This does not sound conciliatory to me.

[progressivebydesign]

19. God, PLEASE don't compare him to Kennedy. I appreciate that.

It's not warranted in the least. Hell, RFK, Jr. endorses Hillary Clinton.

[suston96]

21. Adulation? That what you call it?

I call it American Idol adoration.

There is something terribly wrong with an election process that allows the media in all its divinations and in cohortion with the political party machinations, to determine the playing rules for the nominating process for the American presidency.

We may have a great nominee in Barack Obama - and I have long ago agreed to support him if he is nominated - but that doesn' mean I have to like the system and the process it has determined to select our leaders.

We already have a constitutionally flawed electoral final process which that very constitution allows to be corrupted. The nominating feature of that process is also subject to the same corruptions via the media and the timely scattered nomination selections.

The eventual nominee's selection may make many people happy. But that doesn't mean that the process works.