Primary Thread 3: Race to Denver

[Dinner]

Hillary inherited her organization too.

Obama is the only one who built his own up.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Originally posted by Cyclotron
Bald-faced assertions are great and all, but you've provided no backup for anything you've said besides "Krugman says so." Yes, there is a group of his supporters who apparently think he's great - just like every other candidate ever. Yet it never seems to occur to you to attribute this to "popularity" or "a more articulate presentation" or even "a vaguer message." It's a cult even though you've conflated popularity with a cult; it's a cult of personality even though you've said that the campaign seems more about the message of hope and change. Clinton's supporters who think she can do no wrong are just her partisans; for Obama, they're apparently "cultists," and you've come to this conclusion based on the fact that they are "somewhat loud." A logical conclusion would be that Obama's partisans are more numerous, or more enthusiastic, or just that you're exposed to a biased sample by being on the internet, but for you (and Krugman!) it's a cult of personality.

Look, you're a smart guy and I respect your opinions in general, but your argument is utterly preposterous. You originally suspected a cult of personality on the sole reason that Obama did better than Edwards on a similar platform, even though it's been pointed out that the campaigns were aimed at very different audiences. At times you don't even seem to know what a cult of personality is. I don't mean to be rude, but seriously, WTF are you talking about?

Please. Let's not get all hysterical here and claim that I've come up with this myself. You can just Google it and see how many folks have referred to the Obama campaign as a personality cult. It isn't just Krugman. It isn't just GePap. It isn't just me. Plenty on the right and left see a sort of deification of the man. As Joe Klein (the man who wrote "Primary Colors") states:

http://www.time.com/time/printout/0,8816,1710721,00.html

And yet there was something just a wee bit creepy about the mass messianism — "We are the ones we've been waiting for" — of the Super Tuesday speech and the recent turn of the Obama campaign. "This time can be different because this campaign for the presidency of the United States of America is different. It's different not because of me. It's different because of you." That is not just maddeningly vague but also disingenuous: the campaign is entirely about Obama and his ability to inspire. Rather than focusing on any specific issue or cause — other than an amorphous desire for change — the message is becoming dangerously self-referential. The Obama campaign all too often is about how wonderful the Obama campaign is.

And from the Australian:

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,23182456-28737,00.html

But Obama is part politician, part cult. Supporters wearing T-shirts with an Andy Warhol like pop-art image of his face testify to that. But then they - him - were once easy to dismiss until people realised Obama's charisma was being matched by one of the most sophisticated ground operations ever seen. It is one that is outsmarting the Clinton machine. He's marrying inspiration and cult with old-fashioned political grunt.

One would have to have a heart of stone not to be moved by Obama on the stump. It's not so much by what he says but it's the way the crowds respond to his words. When 16,000 people, without prompting, start shouting some of his keynote phrases as he delivers them, you know something special is going on.

Some more:

http://www.talkleft.com/story/2008/2/7/112248/5633

Are all these folks just that wrong? Why is what they appear to see in that campaign in error?

The "message" of hope and change has been conflated with Obama. What "change" and "hope" did he have to offer that Edwards didn't? Saying they went after different audiences is a bit silly as well. Are you really saying that Edwards wasn't trying to get the working man African-American vote? Saying its about the message (and the mindless droning of "Yes, We Can") and not the man appears incredibly naive.

To attribute this group of folks who are enamored with Obama, thinks he can do no wrong, and the rest of us are misguided folk, as the same as every other campaign is a bit silly. You'd think that people would be speaking out about similar folks on the Clinton side or the McCain side. There is hero worship by a few in every campaign, but the Obama hero worship has gotten the press. There is a reason for that. Because it appears that unlike the other campaigns, it is more than few people in that campaign that are following in the cult of personality. I mean, what, do you want to poll every single Obama supporter to validate an opinion that a number of folks have?

After all, it seems the assertion that the right's worship of Reagan is a cult of personality has gone unchallenged. Perhaps his partisans were/are simply more numerous and enthusiastic?

Or perhaps, your cheering for Obama has somewhat blinded you to it. Or perhaps you also engage in hero worship, who knows?

[snoopy369]

Is the ability to inspire people a bad thing in a leader

I'd say it's what we need right now ...

[Imran Siddiqui]

Originally posted by snoopy369
Is the ability to inspire people a bad thing in a leader

I'd say it's what we need right now ...

Some people will be ok with it. But at some level, it gets to be a question of what comes after the "inspiration". And that may NOT be all that bad (political cults of personality developed around people like Gandhi and Mandela after all). After all, JFK inspired people, and then turned out to be a utterly horrid President.

[Jon Miller]

What we need right now is someone to be competinent and to undo the evil things the Bush administration has done. I don't care one bit about inspiration.

JM

[Nubclear]

Wow. On one hand, you have a fake-progressive (who basically voted in the exact opposite way that an actual progressive in the Senate would have) who also managed to get almost no traction with his candidacy (losing by increasingly large margins as time went on) and is now basically sitting back to calculate what gives him the largest political advantage.

On the other hand, you have a candidate who actually has a voting record to somewhat match his rhetoric and is able to get sections of the American voting population, including sections that either have gone for the Republicans as of late or that traditionally don't vote, to get excited and energized by his pretty progressive campaign in an election year where the population is more receptive to moving toward the Democratic Party than ever.....

and Imran prefers the former? Have the Democrats been abused for so long that they now enjoy losing to the Republicans?

[Dinner]

JFK wasn't a horrible President. He just didn't have much time in office before he was killed. His handling of the Cuban Missile crisis was top notch and got the missiles out without starting WW3 which would have happened if the hawks had got their way. The Soviets had ordered their men to use the nukes if the US attempted to invade.

[Imran Siddiqui]

including sections that either have gone for the Republicans as of late or that traditionally don't vote, to get excited and energized by his pretty progressive campaign

One of the main reasons I see a cult of personality driving Obama forward. Same reason that the Reagan Democrats were evidences of Reagan's cult of personality.

and Imran prefers the former? Have the Democrats been abused for so long that they like losing to the Republicans?

Imran is a moderate. Imran didn't like the "fake-progressive" at all (I think people can vouch here that I loathed Edwards). Imran likes triangulation. Imran may vote McCain over Obama.

[Nubclear]

Does Imran have any reason behind his political opinions than "lol GRRR I HATE CULTS OF PERSONALITY HEAR ME ROAR!!!11!!1"?

[Imran Siddiqui]

Originally posted by Oerdin
JFK wasn't a horrible President. He just didn't have much time in office before he was killed. His handling of the Cuban Missile crisis was top notch and got the missiles out without starting WW3 which would have happened if the hawks had got their way. The Soviets had ordered their men to use the nukes if the US attempted to invade.

He was a horrible President. He didn't have much time in office to be Carteresque, true. But his handling of the Cuban Missile Crisis is one of the biggest bunch of bull**** you've ever seen. Ike would have discreetly contacted Kruschev and negotiated the removal of Turkish missiles for Cuban missiles and not gone all hysterical panic over the affair.

I mean really, we can have nukes in Turkey and the response to nukes in Cuba was to go all on the public airwaves about it? WTF?!

Let's not even get into Bay of Pigs and Vietnam.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Originally posted by Nubclear
Does Imran have any reason behind his political opinions than "lol GRRR I HATE CULTS OF PERSONALITY HEAR ME ROAR!!!11!!1"?

You don't think moderates wouldn't be a bit unhappy with "progressive" politics?

[EPW]

Huckabee is keeping it close in Virginia!

[Nubclear]

You don't think moderates wouldn't be a bit unhappy with "progressive" politics?

Do you always answer questions with questions meant to dodge?
Feel free to criticise Obama on, you know, issues of substance.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Originally posted by Nubclear
Do you always answer questions with questions meant to dodge?
Feel free to criticise Obama on, you know, issues of substance.

I thought I was fairly clear. You were the one who called Edwards "fake-progressive". I'd imagine the implication is that Obama is a real progressive.

[Nubclear]

So do you have any reasons, or is it just "LOL LOOK GUYZ AT HOW ANGRY I AM!!!1" internet posturing?