28 Comments:
Awww man! You mean the "Obamoyster" moniker cannot be made official by the cultist's closest disciples?
Well, CRUD...
Oh, please. Both sides have relied on emotional appeals. It's not a case of the Democrats spontaneously coming out of a coma and recognizing that "hearts and souls" political appeals can garner votes.
Besides, the criticism of Obama isn't based on the idea that he uses emotional appeals to gain a foothold on issues; the criticism is that he's running a vapid cult-of-personality campaign, without any considerable focus on the issues. Of course, that's not new either, but I would say Obama is a pretty extreme example.
1st candidate in a generation to run a campaign based on saturation blathering of the words HOPE and CHANGE?
Was Bill Clinton really a whole "generation" ago?
Look, I feel like I am beating a dead donkey but why are there no political jokes coming out of Leno and Letterman targeting Oblabba? Everyone else has been fair game. (Be careful, this is a trick question.)
In an age where so many of us are wary of smooth-talking, "charismatic" people who seem to be trying to persuade themselves as much as their audience as to what they're saying, Obama is a literal breath of fresh air. Using myself as an example, here's why:
I am almost instantly resistant to anyone (politician, preacher, salesperson, etc.) who is overly friendly to me without a very good reason, particularly if they claim they can effect significant change. Because, frankly, few major things ever change in life, and certainly not without some sort of cut for the "charismatic" person.
Obama's appeal comes not from the traditional definition of such (at least among red-meat Republicans), but that he's able to reach those of us who didn't even know we could be reached. And he does it with a platform and rhetoric that suggests a genuine interest in unifying America, which is why one of my most conservative friends is now voting for him.
Obama's certainly not the first to campaign for hearts rather than minds, but his ability to reach even the most jaded of us (and at this pivotal moment, no less) should be seen as the best thing in politics in 30 years, a force to be mobilized - not as some cult or as a diversion until Hillary assumes her "rightful" throne.
Obama has certainly discussed his plans during the debates. Frankly, in many cases, there aren't terrible dissimilarities between Hill's and Obama ideas so trying to separate the two on many issues is futile and not worthy of discussion. I think that became apparent during the last debate in California. And it's nothing Obama's hiding as he has many of his plans and ideas on his website if you take the time to go look at them. I know not everyone has access to the internet but you can't say he's running on pure rhetoric either.
And it's not as if Hillary is immune to spouting idealism herself. I think Hill has subdued rolling out many of her detailed plans ever since she got slammed for the turgid health insurance outline she released last year.
They're both keeping some things close to the chest and interjecting rhetoric when necessary. I say they should both save issue discussion until they square off against a Repug, where the idea debates will make the democratic nominee shine dramatically.
Owen writes: Oh, please. Both sides have relied on emotional appeals. It's not a case of the Democrats spontaneously coming out of a coma and recognizing that "hearts and souls" political appeals can garner votes.
Actually, it's not far from coming out of a coma.
Let's review recent Dem nominees and their top challengers, and consider who used the "emotional" appeal, and who actually ended up getting the nod:
Hillary vs Obama
Kerry vs Edwards
Gore vs Bradley (push)
Clinton vs Tsongas vs Moonbeam Brown (Clinton combined emotional appeals with wonk)
Dukakis vs Gore vs Jackson
Mondale vs Hart
Carter vs Kennedy
D-BB sez "Look, I feel like I am beating a dead donkey but why are there no political jokes coming out of Leno and Letterman targeting Oblabba? Everyone else has been fair game."
Because, like the GOP, they are waiting til he is the nominee so they can pounce on him and crush his candidacy with scrutiny, slime and jokes.
Yeah, yeah, yeah... It's all a big conspiracy to trap Dems into electing the weaker, softer candidate. If you think-- for a second-- that Axelrod isn't politically tougher and sharper than Mark Penn... you're the one who is dreaming.
oyster,
Clinton combined emotional appeals with wonk, sure, but he used emotional appeals rather well (kind of like Reagan). I wouldn't say you've seen a barrage of "emotional only" candidates like Obama on the GOP side.
Wrong answer Oyster. They’re sure giving Hillary a good amount of jabs along with McCain and even the late Romney. Frankly though, I admire your answer, good try because I sure can't come up with any answer either that is politically correct.
BTW, that's some emotional list. Looks like a passenger list from the Titanic. No matter, I believe Hillary is a good swimmer.
To grossly simplify, in every recent case except for Clinton, the Dems nominated the "head" over the "heart"... and lost.
This time they'll nominate the "heart" candidate, and let's see what happens.
(Note: this does not mean the "heart" candidate is always right, or that the "head" candidate is always wrong.)
You got it right Oyster. Voters, at least right now, don't vote based on policy support (although they do often vote based on policy opposition). They vote on values and for the people who speak to those values.
Obama is special in that he gets that, is able to execute well, and not be evil.
To grossly over simplify, I thought Obama was the "head" candidate? That's how Newsweek profiled him a year or so ago.
Certainly Obama has a head and he isn't as inexperienced as his resume` would lead one to believe or is that just my heart playing tricks on me again?
Your little list of Dems there can also be interpreted as the party consistently nominating the conservative over the liberal.
Except that Gore-Bradley is still a push.
Interesting. Hillary is more liberal than Obama.
Of course I suppose it's hard to tell since Obama has no track record and his platform has been largely stolen from other Democrats and Republicans.
So let me get this straight. Obama does not have a fresh idea in his head (He steals them from people with ideas), is too emotional and not liberal enough, lacks any relevant experience, refuses to talk about the issues unless the word is included, and any voter serious enough to consider his candidancy must be part of a kool-aid drinking cult.
Did I get that right?
Um, OK then. Good luck with that.
The word I meant to include was hope.
Presumably, if Obama claims the White House, all he'll do is sit on the couch drinking a beer and say while watching a football game on TV: "God I HOPE the Illini beats those damn Hoosiers" (Sorry Oyster, merely a joke). Clearly, he isn't capable of doing anything more than sweet talk his way into the office.
Other than his initial vote against the Gulf Coast (Offshore drilling) and his stand on immigration, what else has Obama been original for? I suppose who was fearful of seeing drill rigs of Sheridan Rd.
As for your last statement, I find it a bit condescending, ignorant and racist. But hey, that's just me.
You're more than entitled to your opinion.
D-BB,
I should have clarified further. The Hillary-Obama thing is kind of a wash.
Although it does work as Hill-Obama vs Edwards
Jeffrey???? Hillary vs Obama a wash? You mean Hillary vs Edwards a wash.
Hey imajayhawk, as am u.
This thread is officially closed. Good night girls.
Hey d-bb:
One last thing. I apologize if you feel my post was racist and if Oyster feels the need to remove it from this thread, I have no objections. It was an over-the-top comment using Al Bundy as my inspiration and was not intended in any way shape or form to be racist.
Sorry man.
That picture is just gross.
Can you imagine a similar picture of Bush?
I can, and it would piss me off.
Same goes for this guy.
OK JW, I didn't catch on to the humor. I am sort of a serious guy who was scarred during my childhood. I apologize back to you.
Clio, I have told Oyster that time and time again that his pic he uses for his profile is offensive.
Kids today, what u gonna do with them?
I reject the dichotomy that one is all "heart" to the exclusion of "head." No doubt that Obama's appeal is partly emotional, and maybe primarily so; but don't be fooled that his attraction is limited to only that. If he were just an empty, feel-good suit, he'd get about as far as a snail does in 5 minutes. He's proven himself to be a tough and shrewd campaigner. He's also quite wonkish on the policy side, too. Just do a little research. And the fact is that if he can take the Clinton machine head on and prevail, that says a lot.
Well Hucky, I am gonna cut u some slack. U probably didn't notice but I closed this thread last night. Pay attention! What's wrong with you?
Now, since you brought it up, as along as these big cheeses aka Super Duper Delegates have their way, as long as states like Florida can be eliminated from the democratic process (don't worry, they use to it), heart just may prevail.
With all these shenanigans, if we are not careful though, we may end up with the Supreme Court electing our presidents.
Thread now is really officially closed. Good night....and Adios Hucky
righthandthief.blogspot.com; You saved my day again.
