Obamamania verges on obsession



Questions for Debate:

1) Is 'Obamamania' mostly a media creation or an actual political phenomenom?

2) What is the sense, as well as the extent, in which Obama represents change?

3) Do you think that this incredible popularity during the nomination process could potentially backfire in a Presidential campaign (against the GOP contender)?

My empirical conclusion from asking people who have voted for Obama in the primary consists of this: they find him charismatic and an engaging speaker, he voted against the Iraq War, he wants to do something about health care, and he is mixed race. That is it. They do not know any details about his ideas (because there are none).

People who are stuck in the two party system rut pick him because he is better than any of the others candidates. Some get excited because he is mixed race and his election will be a change from caucasian presidents.

I can not see his support diminishing if he is against McCain. It will be a landslide loss for McCain because of his war and interventionism stance.

Obama is not incredibly popular. His support is shallow and mostly from voters who do not know how to punch their way out of the bag of the media/corporate control of their vote. The voters do not know what to do and Obama is the best they have been given permission to support.

I personally think that Obama has a message that people think is meaningful, but rather isn't saying anything in the process. I suppose that's par for the course with politicians, but in his case seemingly moreso.

Furthermore, I believe that his race surely helps. It helps to polarize voters, and it surely doesn't hurt that he's presentable to all demographics. He's running on a "time for change" ticket, but never really outlines publicly how that effectively will happen. I'm a little apprehensive, and truly believe he's just like the other snake oil salesmen.

Finally, I am really going to be interested in how the GOP spin is going to eat him up. Will they attack his record? Will his momentum thwart GOP attacks? Will his lack of a stance be an asset or a liability?

I think only time will tell. I truly believe that McCain needs to get more voters excited about him and/or against Obama.

Mr. Obama is pretty liberal according to his website and limited voting record. John McCain, in my opinion, is more moderate. I'm not sure whether that will be good or bad when it comes to the voting booths.

1) Is 'Obamamania' mostly a media creation or an actual political phenomenom?

I believe it is an actual political phenomenom. Obviously, the media will play an important role in this image building but his attractiveness is bona fide.

2) What is the sense, as well as the extent, in which Obama represents change?

Two things here: 1) He does speak differerently than the other candidates. He seems to believe the change he speaks of is possible. 2) He will not be able to effect the change he espouses. It's not like others have not wanted change. It is probably quite difficult to make it happen. His most significant contribution for change is in the way he seeks negotiation not in his effectiveness to get it done nor in his ideas for change.

3) Do you think that this incredible popularity during the nomination process could potentially backfire in a Presidential campaign (against the GOP contender)?

Anything has potential though I don't think it will. Enough people are not as interested in the content of his message as they are in the delivery of it. Though I would not caste my vote for him, take me to Vegas now and I'll bet the house he wins the election.

1) Is 'Obamamania' mostly a media creation or an actual political phenomenom?

Well, my 9 year old son told me I should vote for Obama and I'm pretty sure it isn't because he agrees with the man's political positions. Obama is a very charismatic candidate. His campaign has no substance just like the man himself has no record for us to base how he will perform if he gets elected to the highest office in the world.

2) What is the sense, as well as the extent, in which Obama represents change?

He does represent a change from the entrenched, "it's my turn" candidates such as Bob Dole, John Kerry, and John McCain. He is a black man, which is a change. Neither of these "changes" is necessarily a good thing automatically, although they are not bad things either.

3) Do you think that this incredible popularity during the nomination process could potentially backfire in a Presidential campaign (against the GOP contender)?

I don't believe McCain will attack Obama on his lack of substance, but that does not mean that the 527s will not. I think Obama has yet to face a stiff "where's the beef?" examination of just what he is running on. This could backfire depending on how he reacts. How he takes the pressure of the campaign will give us some real insight into how he'll react to the rigors of the Office of President.

Wide angle lenses folks...

Name me one candidate who's actually achieved popularity through substance on either side of this race.

Primaries in general and this one more than ever are about image and electability not policy.

I mean we had Mitt Romney as the leading "conservative" choice for president, for pete's sake...

Is 'Obamamania' mostly a media creation or an actual political phenomenom?
Real. The American people (well liberals and moderates) are out right tired of of Bush, wary of Republicans in general and not dreadfully fond of Hillary Clinton.

Obama is non of the three and charismatic to boot.

What is the sense, as well as the extent, in which Obama represents change?
Sense? Enormous.

Reality. It would be a welcome change to have an actual liberal as president. If his voting record is any indication he'll represent substantial change.

I have my worries, he's playing too heavily the nice guy card, I wonder if he has the resolve to push for daring initiatives... we shall see in the general election.

Do you think that this incredible popularity during the nomination process could potentially backfire in a Presidential campaign (against the GOP contender)?
Nope.

Popularity good.

Especially against less than charismatic John McCain.

Look into my eyes, what do you see?
Cult of personality
I know your anger, I know your dreams
Ive been everything you want to be
I'm the cult of personality
Like Mussolini and Kennedy
I'm the cult of personality
Cult of personality
Cult of personality

First things first. I resent both the title "Obamamania" and the sub-title "Deity of Change" of this thread. You don't need a degree in linguistics to know when someone is trying to marginalize and trivialize something they either dislike or can't understand.

People who choose one candidate over another are not in the grip of a mania. It is patronizing and presumptive to suggest supporters of Senator Barack Obama are not fully in possession of their wits and are making a choice based upon shallow and superficial reasons as if the candidacy of Obama were nothing more enduring than last month's hit song.

There is a particularly pompous point of view (well articulated by Gray Seal) that those who feel energized by Obama's
ascent in popularity is based upon our dulled senses that have been numbed by a steady diet of corporate media, reality TV and junk food. Blacks are supporting Obama out of lockstep racial loyalty and Whites doing likewise because they are guilt-ridden liberal lemmings who want to feel good about themselves by voting for a mixed-race candidate. Apparently, it's only Latinos, Asians, older voters and conservatives who aren't drinking the charisma-flavored Kool-Aid.

Which kind of makes Barack Obama the Halle Berry of politics: Pretty, but lacking depth and maybe talent.

Of course, those who say Obama stands for nothing have done no research. Why bother with fact-checking when offering up empty opinions is so much easier?

Barack Obama is not a deity. A deity is someone of a divine nature. A deity is a god or goddess. Obama is just a man with all the shortcomings and failings of any mortal man. Yes, some people have fainted at Obama rallies, but he has yet to lay his hands on the blind and give them sight or make the lame walk.

I understand that a lot of people who don't get Obama can't figure out why we do, but really, is that any reason to be sacrilegious?

1) Is 'Obamamania' mostly a media creation or an actual political phenomenom?

Neither. The career of Paris Hilton is a media creation. The media didn't make Barack Obama (but they will damn sure start trying to break him). Obama had the advantage of being an excellent orator competing against Hillary Clintion, a policy wonk and as he demonstrated last night in Houston, Texas last night in his 45 minute speech, there's a reason why politicians don't talk about their policies in public forums. It's BORING. It's like when your mother made you eat your spinach before you got any ice cream.

Dubbing the success of Obama's campaign a phenomenon makes it sounds like a lucky accident. To be sure, Obama has enjoyed some positive press, but a lot of that comes with his unique stature as a Black man running for the highest elected office in the land and not doing it as a token candidate with an agenda a la Al Sharpton or Jesse Jackson who were never interested in building broad and inclusive coalitions and 50-state strategies.

What about the fact that in Wisconsin, Obama had a superior ground force (11 campaign offices statewide in comparison to only four by Clinton)? What about the fact that Obama has successfully utilized the Internet to funnel money into his campaign at a rate of a million dollars a week? What about the fact that his crowds are larger, more enthusiastic and his support broader? What about the fact that Obama captured more votes in Wisconsin than McCain and Huckabee combined?

That isn't a phenomenon. That isn't dumb luck. That isn't wishing on a star. That is a smart and well-organized political campaign understanding and implementing it's strategy with discipline and brutal efficiency. Winning ten states in a row is something a lot more deliberate and calculated than a phenomenon.

Neon lights, a Nobel prize
The mirror speaks, the reflection lies
You don't have to follow me
Only you can set me free
I sell the things you need to be
I'm the smiling face on your t.v.
I'm the cult of personality
I exploit you still you love me

I tell you one and one makes three
I'm the cult of personality
Like Joseph Stalin and Gandhi
I'm the cult of personality
Cult of personality
Cult of personality


2) What is the sense, as well as the extent, in which Obama represents change?

Besides the obvious ones, you mean? Well, let's go down the short list.

He's only 46 years old. That makes me older than he is and I've never voted for a presidential candidate where that was the case. John McCain is 71 years old and if Obama is the Democratic nominee that would be the biggest gap between the two contenders in history. There's some change right from the get-go.

Oh, and either Obama, Clinton or McCain would be the first sitting U.S. Senator to make it to the White House since JFK in 1960. It's been 48 years since anyone has pulled that trick off. I'd call that a change.

Let's see---well, there hasn't been a Senator from Illinois to become POTUS since Abraham Lincoln and like Obama he wasn't born in Illinois either. It was just his power base. The last guy who was born in Illinois to become president was Ronald Reagan, another guy with a great command of the spoken word and blessed with the ability to connect with the hopes and better angles of the American People and whose appeal wasn't limited to the base of his political party.

He's a Black man running for the presidency who's both viable and electable. America's never had one of those before, so that would be a change. In fact, let's call that a long overdue change.

Need more?

Neon lights a Nobel prize
A leader speaks, that leader dies
You don't have to follow me
Only you can set you free

You gave me fortune
You gave me fame
You me power in your gods name
I'm every person you need to be
I'm the cult of personality
Look into my eyes, what do you see?
Cult of personality
I know your anger, I know your dreams
I've been everything you want to be
I'm the cult of personality
Like Mussolini and Kennedy
I'm the cult of personality
Cult of personality
Cult of personality

3) Do you think that this incredible popularity during the nomination process could potentially backfire in a Presidential campaign (against the GOP contender)?

Backfire? Backfire how?

My crystal ball is a bit clouded, so my future predictions may be a bit off, but there are so many independent variables and X-factors to consider:

Another terrorist attack could hit America.

There could be another massive natural disaster on a Katrina-like scale.

The economy could go totally in the toilet.

The price of gasoline could go to over $125 a barrel and over $4 a gallon at the pump.

An international crisis could jump off in Pakistan, Iran or somewhere else demanding a reaction from the USA.

Britney Spears might die causing a spontaneous outpouring of grief from celebrity editors and bloggers (and that idiot on YouTube).

Somebody could get shot.

It's a long road to the first Tuesday in November. McCain has the Republican nomination locked up for all intents and purposes. Obama hasn't clinched anything and if Clinton rebounds to win Ohio and Texas she'll likely fight on all the way to the Democratic Convention in August. That's a long time for anyone to stay hot which is why I believe the Obama candidacy is built for a marathon, not the relative sprint of the primaries.

I was told by a reliably solid conservative on this board that Obama gets what Ronald Reagan tapped into better than any of the Republicans running this year. Certainly Obama and Reagan are on totally opposite poles politically, but Obama understands that Reagan was underestimated by his adversaries as little more than a B-movie actor who had a good speaking voice and could remember and deliver his lines with sincerity.

Well, we all know how THAT turned out. Seems Reagan was "misunderestimated" by Democrats and liberals as just all hat and no cowboy. Boy, was that a wrong call. They spent the next 12 years wandering in the wilderness impotent and irrelevant until Bill Clinton broke the decade long losing streak.

After suffering through eight years of the mush-mouthed mutterings of George W. Bush, people are hungry for someone that speaks to them and doesn't just try to scare them to death, but actually inspires them to get off their butts and try to make a difference. In their own lives if no one else.

But by all means, please keep writing off Barack Obama as nothing more than a glib huckster stringing pretty words together and leading the unwashed massed down the primrose path.

Say you want a revolution? Stick around. You just might see what a real revolution looks like.

You gave me fortune
You gave me fame
You me power in your gods name
I'm every person you need to be
I'm the cult of personality

I agree with Turnea's observation.
McCain's Straight Talk Express was dropped so fast to gain support from the far right when he decided to run for POTUS that my respect for him dropped and aint coming back
Hilary is Hilary and I would vote for Dubya before I ever vote for her.

Experienced politicians = experienced street whore. Sure they know what to do but the ensuing problems are the things you regret forever if it doesn't get you killed or all itchy.

Sure he is short on details but he is very inspiring and I think that at this time after 16 years of left vs right HATRED and poison, we need that badly. If he can get Americans fired up and actually believing Yes We Can than he will have done all a leader should actually do.
We can do the rest.

I miss Reagan's optimism and Barak is the same type of big believer and big talker about faith and dreams in America. Reagan didn't fix America, he got Americans to believe in themselves and dust off and get going forward again.

1) Is 'Obamamania' mostly a media creation or an actual political phenomenom?

I think its a cultural thing, and not just American. 'Obamamania' as you call it (and I don't see anything malicious in this word) has really taken off in the Euromedia as well where Hillary Clinton who has long been a bullet proof darling is now suddenly being described in the most off hand way imaginable. Any one would think she was GW Bush from some of the 180 degree turn arounds that I've seen in the last few weeks. I'm mystified as to why so many of our journalists are now Obamaphiles when they've been Hillaryphiles for almost a decade. Maybe the novelty is spell binding or maybe the Clinton glitter has faded, I don't know but one thing is certain, a month ago Hillary Clinton had broad support in Europe. Today Barak Obama gets all the love.


So, Obama is the lesser of these evils?

When are you people ever going to find a decent set of politicians?


2) What is the sense, as well as the extent, in which Obama represents change?

This is where I take exception with the Obama supporters. I don't know of a single politician who has ever gone to an election without 'representing a change', Change is such a tired old cliché in politics that to see it being used, yet again, and with so much enthusiasm, borders on the insane. If Americans are as politically stupid as our media likes to make out, then I could understand and forgive the enthusiasm, but when it comes to journalists in Europe, all of whom saw the election of Tony Blair, on exactly the same illusion of change, and who stand to gain nothing but a sense of abstract satisfaction from an American election, then I am at a loss as to why so many people, both here and there, are so convinced that Barack Obama represents change. The thing is, a non white candidate was bound to come along one day and get broad support. I just wish it was due to something substantial and not Bush fatigue or as I suspect; non white = change.

All in all, I pity America for its poor choices.


3) Do you think that this incredible popularity during the nomination process could potentially backfire in a Presidential campaign (against the GOP contender)?

Everything is possible in politics. Obama might even win and change the world. I really really doubt it though.

I think this is one of the best lines I have read in a long time. You would think us Americans would learn our lesson, but look at what has happened every four years for the last several decades! You are right on target, Moif!

1) Is 'Obamamania' mostly a media creation or an actual political phenomenom?

It’s political, just as Hillary’s use of Bill is political. I find it hysterical that the Clinton crowd is criticizing Obama for using his popularity.

I’m tired of the characterization of Obama as being without substance. He has done a lot in his short time as a Senator (probably more than some of the old duffers who have been there far longer).



His message of change dovetails with the efforts he has made to this point. As president, obviously he would be in a position to affect more, and more substantial, changes to “government as usual”.

2) What is the sense, as well as the extent, in which Obama represents change?

It’s the difference between night and day. Do we continue down the same path that has brought us enormous deficits, never-ending wars, health care on a par with 3rd world countries, disastrous environmental policies, and disintegration of our civil rights, or do we take a chance on someone who brings a positive message of change?

Everyone who doesn’t think he’s a worthwhile candidate, fail to mention his message of change is backed up with more than charismatic speeches. He has clearly stated his intentions. Granted, he’ll face an uphill battle with the stuffy, entrenched old farts of the old guard, but the very fact that he is willing to take them on means a helluva lot to voters like me.

3) Do you think that this incredible popularity during the nomination process could potentially backfire in a Presidential campaign (against the GOP contender)?
Hardly. Since when has popularity been as detriment? The contrast between the two of them couldn’t be more obvious: stick with the same disastrous policies we’ve suffered through for the last 8 years (McCain), or take a chance on actually making some positive changes, stick with belligerence, arrogance and rage (McCain) or take a chance on civility, unpretentiousness and calm (Obama). Hell, Dubya might as well have his name on the GOP line because McCain just intends to continue were Bush left off. I believe the American people are tired of the same old regime and are ready to embrace the change that Obama offers.

But, hey, that’s just my opinion. We’ll see in November.

And, oh, btw, I find the tagline characterizing Obama as a "deity" offensive in the extreme. If anyone has a God complex and delusions of grandeur, it is the current occupant of the White House.

Oh, that's okay, Moif. Some of us are extremely happy with our choices and I count myself in that group. Now some of the local Republicans around here---THERE'S a group of unhappy campers if ever I've seen one. They might be interested in some of your pity. Me? Everything's Kool and the Gang with me, homey. Couldn't be better.

By the way, if you want to know of a single politician who doesn't represent change, John McCain should be right up your alley. He wants to make Bush's tax cuts permanent. He wants to keep the bases in Iraq permanently. He wants the U.S. to stay in Iraq for 100 years if that what it takes. In other words: permanently.

If you've enjoyed the past eight years of George W. Bush, you couldn't ask for much more of the status quo than McCain. For him "change" is a dirty word. Besides the letterhead on the stationary in the Oval Office, you might as well call him John NoChange.



Barack Obama is an ambitious brother, but I don't recall changing the world in his position papers. His motto is "Change we can believe in." The thing about trying to change the world is it has a habit of changing back.

Right now, the task of sending the village idiot back to Texas and restoring a sense of pride and participation in America is a lofty enough goal.

1) Is 'Obamamania' mostly a media creation or an actual political phenomenom?
I don't doubt the media has had a lot to do with Obama's success, but Barack Obama is responsible for attracting voters en masse (particularly first-time voters) with his message. Yes, he is a skilled and engaging speaker, but that should not detract from his other strengths or discount the fact that these strengths exist. Like nighttimer, I get sick and tired of hearing people complain about Obama not having any plans. Apparently these people don't know how to go to his website and download his 64 page pdf document (which has links to even MORE specific pdf documents that detail his plans for 'change') and read his plans. That he is an eloquent and charismatic guy does not mean he can't possibly have plans. That each candidate seems to have been pigeon-holed in one way or another by the media doesn't make those characterizations accurate. I did not vote for Obama simply because he's black or an engaging speaker or because of Iraq or because he says he wants to change health care. I voted for Obama because I agree with his stance on the issues, I agree with his plans for education (fixing NCLB so that schools who need help are getting support instead of being penalized, creating scholarships for college students who volunteer in return, etc.), his plans for health care (he addresses the reasons for health care costs and ways to eliminate and reduce unnecessary costs, allowing overseas presciption drugs, etc.), his Iraq timetable, his energy plans (25% of electricity from renewable resources by 2025), and on and on. I am an informed voter, an intelligent voter...I voted for Obama BECAUSE of his plans. I can't say it won't be nice to have the opportunity to vote for someone OTHER than an old white guy, though

Hillary Clinton's website links to press releases relating to her plans for issues (her info is pretty extensive and detailed), McCain's links to bullet points about plans for each issue, Huckabee's plans are almost non-existent on his website and there is little to no research referenced on his site. Obama's and HRC's plans are very detailed and easily accessible from their websites. McCain's are accessible but not as detailed and Huckabee's are pretty much just his thoughts on issues, not actual plans.

2) What is the sense, as well as the extent, in which Obama represents change?
See by points above about his plans. He has them. That people do not know about them does not mean they don't exist. Obama completely represents change from the current administration. He is against just about everything they are for and for just about everything they are against. He does not have the ties to lobbyists/PACs that many of the other folks have. His very presence as a front-runner, being man of color, speaks volumes about the shift in the status quo. The fact that he can properly construct a sentence is an added bonus.

3) Do you think that this incredible popularity during the nomination process could potentially backfire in a Presidential campaign (against the GOP contender)?
I suppose it's possible, but I don't think that will be the case. Unless people decide that he's already got it in the bag (which is incredibly foolish no matter what side you're on), they will continue to support him. His popularity will only increase as people start learning what he's about and that he actually DOES have plans despite the notion that he's "all talk".

Let's get this pile-on started.


It's too bad your son isn't as sharp as your daughter, ey dad?

Is 'Obamamania' mostly a media creation or an actual political phenomenom?
He got a great media boost before this campaign started in earnest. Now? It's hard to tell who is feeding off who.

What is the sense, as well as the extent, in which Obama represents change?
Change from the Bush doctrine, that's for certain. How much change though, I'm not sure. I'm skeptical of any liberal politician reforming health care in any meaningful way. Business interests are too integrated with policy and lawmaking.

Do you think that this incredible popularity during the nomination process could potentially backfire in a presidential campaign (against the GOP contender)?
No, unfortunately. Like Christopher mentioned, look at Reagan. Lofty allusions are important for too many Americans. I don't need a damn candidate that makes me feel warm and fuzzy. I need a candidate I can agree with that won't ruin America.

I went to Michelle Obama's OSU rally last week and McCain's post-Wisconson rally in The Columbus hotel last night.

I've said before how the GOP doesn't appreciate how conservative African Americans are even though they tend to vote Democratic so I wasn't surprised Michelle's speech carried religious undertones. What struck me was how religious. Bush said God talks to him. Apparently that was Obama dropping a line.

At one point she said Obama will ask you to be different. If that's not a page out of the Gospel I don't know what is. Now neocons are whining about Obama's dogwhistle politics. Damn it doesn't he know that's a patented Republican tactic?

I'm not against Obama, but I'm not for him, either. I'll probably write in my vote at this point. It rankles me that not only does he lack discussing issues of substance during stump speeches, but his volunteers encourage others to join them in mystifying Obama, sidestepping issues in the process:


We're just getting over one religious nut in the White House and we may have another in store.

Websites are great, thanks for the tip. I've heard the rationale behind directing people to websites before. It's not enough. I want him to go on TV and say it so the media can play it over and over and over again if/when he goes back on his word and if his plans are better than Clinton's articulating the fact should be easy.

I was surprised how much religion, abortion, judicial activists, gay marriage, basically wedge issues were absent from speeches made at McCain's rally. Did I mention religion? I think Mike DeWine was the only politician to mention abortion in his speech.

Rhetorically speaking McCain gave a good speech. Too bad it was full of empty platitudes like pro-family. Catchwords that mean everything and nothing to anybody and are meaningless. Too bad the only thing he mentioned that I agree with is energy independence.

Maybe I'm wrong about religion, though. I don't know what it is about conservatives that ranking and being #1 matters. I was disappointing so many said being proud of their country was important. Imagine what Obama could accomplish if he was selling pride instead of hope.

Here's what I have to say about all this. Just a brief point.

Yes, hope and change are standard tropes of politicians across the universe. Criticizing a politician for using hope and change is like criticizing a trumpeter for using the notes f# and b-flat. The content, as is so often the case in politics, is all in the performance.

That's not to diminish the importance of policy, and for about a year, all Barack would do is chat policy. He was, you might remember 'aloof,' 'professorial.' Karl Rove wrote him off as a 'vitamin deficient Adlai Stevenson.' Barack still chats policy in his stump speech, which by the way, is not a very inspiring stump speech. A half-grade above average. Nothing to get fired up for.

But his big tv teleprompter speeches -- those are a different sort. And I want to make a point about those.

"The Audacity of Hope" is a phrase Barack lifted from his pastor, Rev. Jerimiah Wright. Let's follow that line of thought and say the central core of his big speech -- as well as maybe some of his delivery style -- also came from Jerimiah Wright. I don't know the reverend, and I've never been to his church. But I think its a fair hypothesis to presume that Rev. Wright is a master of entendre and circumlocution, which would put him firmly in the afro-american oral tradition, especially the afro-american christian tradition. After all, a lofty phrase like "audacity of hope," is only good as the details that corraborate it (are we talking about pro-life groups having the audacity to bomb abortion clinics? CFA's having the audacity to invest in sinking financial companies?) The words "audacity of hope" are going to mean a very different thing for an audience on the south side of chicago than they would for John McCain speaking to a group of former P.O.W.'s. The substance for a phrase like that is not so much what's spoken outright, but what's implied.

I bring all this up because I see (or hear) the same gift in Barack. For almost 40 years, liberals have been demonized and stereotyped as latte sipping soddamites bent on brining america to its knees before the communist/terrorists/feminists. Conservatives fight over the 'mantle of convervatism.' Liberals avoid the L-word like political leprosy. So if you're looking for the political substance of a Barack speech, its in the details he can't say. It's in the details that corrobarate that phrase. Those unspeakbale details are politically audacious, and they are wrapped up in Baracks personal biography. They are, briefly:

-The end to American exceptionalism, by virtue of a half-kenyan president.
-A liberal majority running through "red states and blue states"
-An American leadership that reflects the multi-culturalism of the nation
-A doctrine of pacifism that doesn't have to defend itself (see: iraq vote).

Are those high goals? Of course. But a president who could even nudge America in this direction would be, naturally, greeted with enthusiasm by Americans who feel that their views have been marginalized since the 1980 elections. Flip the tables: if, for the past 28 years, you republicans had watched Jimmy Carter after Walter Mondale after Walter "W." Mondale win the white house, with only two terms of centrist republican to separate the political onslaught, how would you feel if an upstart like Barack Obama so eloquently spoke for conservative values? If you knew right now, some AM radio station was eviscerating your views with the effeciency of Ann Coulter, Rush Imbaugh and Bill O'Reilly, how would you feel if a conservative came along with the rhetorical powers to make them look like yesterday's bad news?

Would that be a 'mania' or an overdue change in the political winds?

Barack Obama definitely has positions on various issues. But if mainstream America knew them, I don't think they'd agree with them. The U S of A is not a liberal nation and Obama is definitely the most liberal of the candidates still in the race.

But he doesn't talk about issues in his speeches. His rhetoric cannot be bogged down by such mundane specifics. When Obama becomes the nominee we can go in-depth on his political positions (he does, of course, have them) but it would derail this discussion. Suffice to say that so far the majority of his supporters have only a cursory knowledge of his positions (with the exception of the Iraq War and possibly health care).

Obama is passionate, he is motivating, he speaks from the soul. He sounds like a Baptist clergyman. Perhaps he does sound like Rev. Jerimiah Wright. I wouldn't know. He does remind me of another minister who was both substantive and younger.




Well, I never said she had a grasp of Bush's positions at nine, only that Kerry's shiftiness was apparent. My point was that my son is enthusiastic for Obama in a way that my daughter has never been for anyone in politics, yet he knows nothing about him. Just an observation.

Y'know, I have been seeing, hearing and reading for years that such-and-so has positions on various issues that are out of step with "mainstream America." I have one question: WHO THE HELL IS "MAINSTREAM AMERICA?"

Who on this freakin' board is part of this mythical "Mainstream America?" Where is it and can I get some directions? I've lived in this nation all my life and I'll be damned if I can find "Mainstream America" anywhere on the map.

Amlord, you say Obama doesn't talk about issues in his speeches. The profanity filter won't permit to respond the way I would like, so I'll just say that's a load of cow manure. What kind of specifics are Republicans getting from John McCain that Democrats aren't getting from Barack Obama? We'll never know because you sure aren't telling us. All I hear from McCain is, "My friends, I will defend America from radical Islamic fundamentalists." Well, that's great John. Wanna tell us how since our military is stretched too thin as it is and you want us to stay in Iraq for a hundred years if that what it takes? You planning on sending your steroid gobbling supporter, Sylvester Stallone, to go kick The Taliban and Al Qaeda's butts?

Where are McCain's specifics? Or should we really expect a candidate who admits he doesn't understand how the economy works to figure out how he's going to pay for the continued billion-dollars-a-week occupation of a foreign country?

It would not "derail this discussion" for Obama's critics and skeptics to provide proof behind their own empty rhetoric that he has no specifics. It's the shrill whining of the drive-by b.s. artists that sounds hollow and ineffectual.

It does NOT suffice to say that the majority of Obama's supporters only have a "cursory knowledge" of his positions. And you know that how? Based upon your own personal polling or some analysis done by someone else? Where are your sources? What do you base that rash assumption on Amlord besides you just thought it sounded really cool?

In the battle between the "cursory knowledge" supposedly possessed by Obama supporters and the vapid, vacuous void that Obama detractors are offering up in its stead, the void is getting the crap smacked out of it by cursory knowledge.

Is 'Obamamania' mostly a media creation or an actual political phenomenom?

It is a media creation that has turned into a political phenomenon. The media is huge in creating buzz around people in positive and negative ways. When the media takes a positive or negative incident that happens in the political sphere and broadcasts it over and over again that can be either detrimental or beneficial to a candidate. The problem is that the media blows things out of proportion all the time and, in doing so, has a huge effect on the public, at large.


What is the sense, as well as the extent, in which Obama represents change?

He definitely represents change. Whether or not he will truly change things if he gets elected remains to be seen. His speeches do not inspire me, but I am hardened and disillusioned by politics and have no faith that any modern individual can effect the change needed to bring America to a place where I would like to see it.


Do you think that this incredible popularity during the nomination process could potentially backfire in a Presidential campaign (against the GOP contender)?

I'm not sure about that. But where I do think it could backfire would be in his actual presidency, were he to get elected. People will expect him to deliver the goods, so to speak. Being a good orator is one thing, but being a good leader is another thing entirely. The real test comes to whoever becomes the next president. Can Obama fix all of the problems that Americans want fixed? It remains to be seen.

Can you feel the irony of someone that voted for GW twice actually suggesting that some other voter is uninformed as a nine year old?

Look at it this way Amlord- the conservatives have had thier way with this country since Reagan in 1980, and they screwed the pooch, big time. This time may very well represent the most incompetant and ideologically wrong time in our entire nations history.

Obama, no matter what his stance on issues- represents a landslide shift in American expectations of it's two party system.

McCain represents perhaps more competant GW-ness, but still, the same failed policies over and over again.

Hillary represents a return to bill-ism, and really, in the end, more of the same of the crappy two party candidates that this country has really churned out since 1980,

With the great arguments being who can label whom "conservative" or "liberal"- when Reagan introduced big goverment as solutions to social problems, thier "wars" on this and that have no more place than big goverment social programs. Just more of the same, packaged differently.

Obama, for whatever reason, seems to be the anti-samesamesamesame,

I think it has more to it than the man OR his policies- but a signal to political America of "we can't go on like this"- and a demand for change.

It may not be liberalism or conservatism as we knew it- it might be a hybird of the two.

Only Obama really represents that SYMBOL of need for change. Frankly- only Ron Paul had a chance to run against the winds of change- I believe had the Republicans actually nominated Ron Paul- the republicans would have represented change in this sea of crap we have been living under for the last 28 years, and they missed the only opportunity to return to real small goverment ideology and re-focus on the good parts of thier platforms.

The republicans rejected change, the dems seem to be embracing it.

We will see how important change is come the November elections.

Thanks NT, I think we all just added Cult of Personality to our Ipods

...Hopefully I won't get the AMlord response

In another thread, I compared, anecdotally, the political knowledge of the average Ron Paul supporter to the average Obama supporter:

I would submit that most Obamites, particularly those new to voting and politics (which Obama has generated in droves), are picking up the cause for "shallow and superficial reasons." In my opinion, his oratory skills are a mixed blessing: sending the message out to those whom might never have listened, while simultaneously attracting those that merely enjoy the energy of the campaign.

I mean this not as a gesture of elitism, but as a serious analysis of Obama's campaign. Presumably, everyone on AD is entertained by politics itself. Its unfair criticize those that are not and display a corresponding amount of political knowledge.

But the amount of Obamite fanaticism has reached an unusually high degree. From the respected economist, Paul Krugman:

NYtimes

It's nice to support "change," or "unity." But those things are really nice when they're backed up with policy. Why aren't more Obama supporters cheering the substance of his campaign? To what degree are they enamored by his speeches rather than his policies? Obama's race for the election seems less like an affirmation of reasonable politics, and more like cultural enthusiasts pushing to lionize their favorite hero.

Don't get me wrong. I love Obama. Its his supporters I can't stand.

But political popularity cannot be maintained indefinitely like this. Obama will almost certainly win the election, and after the enjoyment dies down, don't be surprised if some talk about his campaign in the same breadth as last months hit song.

1) Is 'Obamamania' mostly a media creation or an actual political phenomenom?
People are voting for Barack Obama for a few reasons. He's an inspiring speaker. He opposed the war from the start. He's more electable than Hillary Clinton in a general election. He's the first black man to have a legitimate shot at the White House in our nation's deplorable history. Unfortunately, all the reasons I listed are not reason that you should vote for a person. They differentiate him from Hillary. Position-wise, he's not much of a candidate. I've been trying to figure out what he's all about since he came on the scene and I'm still not sure. I know he has a 19-month draw down date from Iraq, however, I know what history is like and my sense is that he's not going to get out in 19-months, just as Nixon failed to get out of Vietnam. His generals are not going to recommend withdrawal. If he goes against the military leadership, he may indeed be more like JFK than we'd like.

2) What is the sense, as well as the extent, in which Obama represents change?
He is Orwellian change. Change in the sense that everything is going to stay the same. Make no mistake, our country will be improved by his presence in the White House, but more because he will replace Bush and not because he's a great leader. I am skeptical to believe that he is going to change anything in our government. Joe Biden, Nancy Pelosi, Schumer, and all the senior Democrats, with the exception of Ted Kennedy, is supporting Hillary. Ted Kennedy is voting for Obama because he reminds him of his brother, again, not a reason to vote for someone. I don't see any of those people, to include the Republican side of the Congress, letting Obama make the agenda for the country. He is the second-coming alright, of Jimmy Carter.

3) Do you think that this incredible popularity during the nomination process could potentially backfire in a Presidential campaign (against the GOP contender)?
A Democrat is going to win the White House no matter what.

I don't believe that is the case. The guy is for merit pay in education and has a detailed health plan that is in the form of a pdf. document on his website. Yes, he does speak in platitudes and ideals, rather than nitty gritty details. Howver, if a candidate dives into the details, he will be about as boring as Al Gore and his lock box. That was Gary Hart's problem too, he was too cerebral and took way too much time explaining everything, as opposed to inspiring. Heck, people voted for George W. Bush not because of his policy positions, but because he was laid back and was someone that you could have a beer with. He wasn't pretentious, didn't think he was better than you, and was like the guy next door.



I disagree, what viable third party candidate offers a good message and is someone who isn't a moonbat?





McCain might just be the Bob Dole candidate of this decade. "Break in case of an election" and experience won't trump what the democrats have going right now. The democrats have mojo, the republicans have metamucil.



I doubt that his support is shallow. He has raised $43 million from mostly small donors, as opposed to large donors who don't comprise a large part of the population. I would say that McCain's paltry $12 million is more of a sign of shallow support than Obama's numbers. Not only that, but in South Carolina, a strong republican bastion if there ever was one, Obama received more votes than the two republican candidates did. Democratic turnout was also greater. If his support was shallow, Hillary's numbers would've been similar to that of McCain's in S.C.

Punching their way out of the bag of media/corporate control of their vote? So people are being manipulated to donate millions and help him win with impressive numbers in most, if not all, demographics? I would be curious as to how you believe that would be the case.

That about sums it up.

"What if he can't get us out of Iraq in 19 months?" ..Gee, that would place us exactly where we would be with the other candidates. Reality always smacks with the ideal when a president comes to office. At least Obama is coming in with a much cleaner slate.

No substance? Compared to what? Clinton speaks in scripted talking points, and her comments are nearly always aimed at Obama. By contrast, Obama offers a coherent narrative of his campaign and his vision. He also focuses on the opposition rather than his own party affiliate. He crosses barriers and parties and appeals to a wide variety of individuals.

Obama inspires people. He represents an idea. If that doesn't seem like enough substance, compare that to what the others represent. His story, his message, and his vision are all things that I want for America. I think he has the character and judgment to lead this country at a time when we need true visionary leadership, and that's about as much as we could hope for in a presidential candidate...more of an opportunity and we've had in a long while.

1) Is 'Obamamania' mostly a media creation or an actual political phenomenom?

Something+mania is from the 1960s, as in Beatlemania. So this is crappy writing. We aren't a bunch of tweens screaming our heads off. Well, some of us are. Politics can get a person going.

2) What is the sense, as well as the extent, in which Obama represents change?

That's his schtick and he's sticking to it. Seems to be working. It busted loose in the early primary season and has gained momentum since, knocking Hillary off her game, forcing some discussion about GOP change. Change is going to be the big post-nomination theme, which encompasses everything like a faltering economy, a bad job market, a questionable project ongoing in Iraq, lack of health care, oil dependence and so forth.

If Congress remains Democratic, then I see a jolting halt to our swing right straight off the bat. The oil/gas companies will hate that. The beltway bandidos (defense contractors) will hate that. The corporate crooks will become very nervous about getting caught and prosecuted way before they can gut any more companies, pension funds and the like.

Health care I suspect will be a longer haul, mostly because it's such a mess now that it'll take a lot of small steps rather than big leaps.

Of course corruption will probably get into the mix, as in lobbyists buying out politicians. I expect a lot of political intrigue novels coming out over the next five or so years.

3) Do you think that this incredible popularity during the nomination process could potentially backfire in a Presidential campaign (against the GOP contender)?

Nope.

It's basically this: The nation has had it up to here with the GOP. The nation wants change and will get that change, then probably complain about it. It's not written into the Declaration, but it might as well be as one of the unalienable rights of US citizenship.

Anybody who wants to know about Obama's political stances can go visit his Web site. For those unfamiliar with search, here it is:

Yep, Here It Is

Looks to me that the political stances are presented in detail. Huh, and the talking heads deny that? Okay, they're apparently both stupid and grossly overpaid. Those are the primary (heh) reasons I don't listen to these guys any longer, and it seems that the nation has stopped listening too, except maybe for the comic value.

I still believe that delving into policy positions that nobody knows about is off topic here. However, if Obama has delivered them in a speech, then it is relevant.

Barack gave the following speech at Tulane a few weeks back: Tulane Speech transcript

Among the things he promised the residents of New Orleans:
-Familes can return to houses, not trailers.
-Director of FEMA will report directly to the President
-Build a system of levees that will withstand a Cat 5 by 2011 (cost: $32 billion or more)
-Create a national Emergency Response Plan (already done.)
-Federal rebuilding coordinator will report directly to the President
-Make the Road Home program "more efficient"
-Increase the amount of rental property in the area "to reduce the cost of rent"
-Build new hospitals
-Forgive loans for doctors and nurses in the area
-Start a new COPS program
-Launch a regional effort to combat drugs and crime and gangs in the Gulf Coast area
-$250 million program to attract teachers to the region
-Across the country, give teachers more pay and support
-Pay for teachers college education and create a mentoring program
-Move teachers "up the career ladder" (whatever that means)
-Loan forgiveness program for student loans
-College education grant in exchange for community service (a great idea in my book)
-Reward community colleges that graduate more students (hmm, degree factories!)



Where is this money going to come from? I think I know, but Barack won't say.

Here's another speech, this time at a tractor plant in Wisconsin.

What did he promise these people?

-$500 checks to working families for economic stimulus, $250 to seniors.
-The government will pay 10% of everyone's mortgage interest.
-More government interference in the mortgage industry (as if it wasn't government that created that mess in the first place).
-Middle class tax relief, covering 95% of "working Americans", offsetting the payroll tax.
-Double the Earned Income Tax Credit and triple it for those making minimum wage
-Inflation adjust the minimum wage (at least this doesn't take tax money.)
-Universal health coverage that will save the "average family" $2500 in premiums. Good trick considering I pay around $2500 per year. Free health care for me!
-I like Obama's quaint "we were paying more for student loans than our mortgage" anecdote. You and your wife are both lawyers! I'm sure you'll understand if we postpone the pity party.
-Increase the child care credit for families earning less than $50,000.
-Double the amount spent on afterschool care.
-Expand the Family and Medical Leave policy.
-Require employers to have a private retirement account for all workers, with government matching the contributions.

In this one, he also referencing paying for it:

Hmm a carbon tax. That's a new one.

Obama's recent speeches have gone into details. They are just details that we don't have the money to pay for and greatly expand the federal government's interference in everyone's lives. He is truly living up to his "most liberal Senator" status.

Oh and let's not forget his foreign policy stance: invade Pakistan if we have to in order to get bin Laden (the Pakistanis be damned), get out of Iraq to pay for his other plans (isn't that all borrowed money?), and end (curb?) trade with China.

Hell to the yeah, CruisingRam!




Always trying to give some to Living Colour.



I watched an interview Barack Obama conducted with Tavis Smiley from October when he was 30 points behind Clinton. He said that any campaign has its peaks and valleys. He has to know nobody can remain so hot for so long. People who are riding the crest of the Obama wave aren't meant to be considered serious supporters. They're caught up in the euphoria and that will pass.

Still, there are a lot more who are attracted to a candidate who possesses not just eloquence and charisma, but genuine substance and a desire to move beyond blind partisan politics. Hillary is a great politician but she is a terrible speaker.

It's true what they say about her: Hillary Clinton IS Tracy Flick.

And John McCain? Nice guy and I got mad respect for him. But he's the wrong man at the wrong time.

Paul Krugman is entitled to his own opinion about Obama. He's yearning for another New Deal and in 2008, that's not going to happen. If you think Obama loves the power of government, Krugman worships it. He faults Obama for not sharing his grandiose (and vaguely socialist) expansionist vision. All Krugman means to me is he proves its not just conservatives who are slavishly loyal to the old paradigm of confrontational politics; there are quite a few liberals still down for it as well.

Remember, a village in Texas has been missing its idiot for nearly 8 years now. If we can elect Bush president of the United States -- not once, but twice -- then we can elect a smart, powerful, uplifting mythical figure, too! It is now clear that a "C" student can start two wars, mess them both up, alienate the world, squander a $40 billion budget surplus and create backbreaking public debt. And while doing so, also manage to deepen the sense of polarization and cynicism regarding politics and our public lives.

What makes me want to cry is the difficulty some people, including otherwise liberal public intellectuals like Paul Krugman, are having with embracing a message of hope. It seems that some folks are so hemmed in by a comprised and falsely constrained discourse that they won't embrace what a growing number of Americans plainly see and passionately want -- that we don't have to slog through the same old politics and fights. We don't have to remain in the mire. We don't have to go the low road. Hope is at hand.

Today, Obama represents a movement, a movement on the center-left that has felt closed out of even Democratic politics for a long time. Obama can unite the Democrats, as the recent results in Maryland and in Virginia proved pretty dramatically. Just ask the expanding ranks of low-income, white men and white women who just cast their votes for Obama, too! Once elected, he will change the political landscape as well. And he can take on John "100-Year-War" McCain. It is a movement whose time has come. link

Nobody supporting Barack Obama seriously believes any one man can make Republicans and Democrats sit down and break bread together, water flow upstream and lambs to lie down with lions. But at some point if we don't even freaking TRY to change how politics don't work in this country, what can you expect but more non-working politics?

A cynic is not merely one who reads bitter lessons from the past, he is one who is prematurely disappointed in the future.

I'm beginning to drink the TIME FOR CHANGE Kool Aid... hell, I'm so disenfranchised I don't know what to believe anymore.

However, as much as I believe that Obama's "change" mantra is good, what makes anyone think it's legit?

How would a Senator with one of the most liberal voting records in the nation, with some of the least logical (see Amlord's post) and financially imprudent ideas, and with one of the shortest political records change politics (for the better)?

I wouldn't say that I'm cynical about change, but rather that I would venture to wonder how someone so far off the center would make that happen. Furthermore, someone with such limited experience.

My analogy would be that there often might be VERY good College football coaches that have innovative ideas that blow the doors off other teams. However, when in the NFL, they flop. (ever heard of Nick Saban?) The game is just different, and unfortunately it truly is a game.

I'm not sold on McCain, and if I vote I'm forced to vote for him. However- isn't McCain more of a moderate and doesn't he have a stronger ability to bring people towards the center? (Again- I don't agree with all of his politics) The issue I have is that Mr. Obama speaks to a very liberal base. Unfortunately, not everyone is buying the snake oil.

NT, you're absolutely right. It IS time for Change, and something I'm very grateful for is that Mrs Clinton is getting sacked. However, my concern with Mr. Obama is that his politics will create a similar or even wider divide in American politics.

QUOTE

Maybe he is the next Jimmy Carter. But if it is for the reasons you state, then wouldn't it be the case that we the people failed our selves and not that Barack failed.

If Barack want to change he better start to use his masterful oratory skills and take a page out of Hugo Chavez/Castro book if elected. The system will not sustain change, with out the movement of the people. Funny, how democracy sounds like socialist propaganda isn't it.

I wonder if Obama understands the necessity of running to mom and dad when Congress doesn't play fair. Will he grasp the need to hold conferences that constantly and publicly criticizing any dragging of the feet by Congress.

In his last speech... Obama made a great point of knowing change isn't easy. It is going to take will. It's gonna take resources. It's gonna take a constant reminder to the American people, and I do mean constant.

AMLord

Amlord do you believe that the changes that Barack Obama is talking about will cost even a fourth of what the Iraq war is costing in terms of money and human life?? If not, then what's the problem??

I checked the links to Barrack Obama policy details and they do exist now. They did not exist in December, the last time I checked his website for such information. I do stand corrected that he does indeed have a detailed plan.

I had no idea he wants to centralize power in Washington D.C. to this extent. It is good to see he has a timeframe of 16 months to leave Iraq.

Leaving Iraq would be a change. Centralizing power in Washington D. C. is more of the same, and much more of the same with implementation of his detailed policies.

That's the sticky thing about leadership, people want to be inspired. Inspiration is what gets people to the polls, not policy positions, sadly.

I'll be happy to discuss Obama's policy positions with anyone who wishes to address them. Yes, most are only detailed in full on his website, but that's not really all that different from any other candidate, even Clinton. For the wonks like us that want it, its available.


I understand why they do this, its basic sales. You got very few moments on the phone to impress upon someone to vote and vote for their candidate. Discussing the intricacies of health care mandates or carbon tax credits might gain you 3% of the people you dial up (that number might be generous). Its just like the tv ads you see. In the sound byte world you can't go policy wonk during a break on American Idol. There is a time for policy review and discussion, and sometimes the debates can provide a glimpse, but the average American won't invest the time to listen or research those things. So the effective candidate doesn't go there.

The irony of your complaint here is that it likely isn't very different from any other campaign, other than perhaps the GOP hammering on the wedge issues which is arguably the same thing. Instead of inspiring, they are trying to scare people into voting. I don't see a difference.

Ask Michael Dukakis or Walter Mondale about the efficacy of substance in a campaign.


I think this is just a bit over the top. Watch the man in the debate tonight, I caught the last one where it was just him and Hillary, and tell me you see a religious figure working the process. After reading The Audacity of Hope last year, I get the sense that religion for Obama has a role in his life, but its far more limited in scope than your average religion pandering politician.


You should know better than this by now. The reality is that the policy differences between Obama & Clinton are marginal. I like his technology plan better and I'm on the fence about health care mandates vs. my distrust of the government's ability to run anything efficiently or effectively. Where Obama separates himself from Clinton in my book is: judgement (his), lack of dynasty (bush/clinton etc), reliance on loyalty to a fault (hers), and ability to inspire. On the policy level, I don't see enough separating them to make a significant difference. And I probably have a minority opinion on electability.

In the general election, I think McCain has a solid chance of beating Clinton. However, Obama gets the ability to hang Bush's track record around McCain's neck and bludgeon him with it. Clinton doesn't get that same degree of separation due to some of her track record & identification of Clinton with the old political machine (fair or not).


Selling pride is what Reagan did. Obama is trying the same thing with a different noun.

Amlord- all the stuff you are all against Obama on as far as fiscal issues, well, it still makes him the fiscal conservative between him and McCain.

The single most expensive thing we REALLY can't afford is the Iraq war. You total up everything Obama has mentioned, give it a x2 just for kicks, and it IS STILL cheaper than the Iraq war.

In fact, his stance on removing us from the war makes him the most fiscally sound candidate besides Ron Paul on the original slate of candidates dating back to last year.

Bottom line is- we CAN afford his "vision"-because it is far cheaper than McCain's "vision".

I still get a kick out of GW voters that claim Obama followers are any less informed than your average Republican that voted for that douchebag.

Especially considering the number of "one issue voter" in the Republican party.

Pot, meet Kettle.

Heck, you want to talk about ignorant? Look at all the right wing in-box e-mails that claim that Obama is a muslim plant.

OH yeah, let's not forget the morons that actually believed : The swift water liars, the push poll against McCain in SC, the "kerry will take away your bibles" in Arkansas- pretty much proving that the average GOP voter IQ is NOT in the double digits.

No doubt. I can't tell you how many times I've gotten e-mails and messages from "informed" conservatives talking about Obama's Muslim ties, his unwillingness to swear on a Bible, that he "has no plans" (yet they are easily accessible to anyone who takes 5 mintues to try to find them). I host a lib/dem board on my parenting site of choice and some of the conservative/Reps have sent me PMs asking for specifics on Obama since they "can't find them" or "don't exist" and have either neglected to respond when I point them in the right direction or apologized and thanked me for the info. One even said she agreed with some of his ideas and she just kept hearing the news dismiss Obama as "lacking plans" so she assumed it was true.

Another thing I just thought about regarding Obama and his reliance on his website...

Many of his voters are young college students. Younger people are less likely to tune into debates, but they sure will use the internet to get information. I'm sure the fact that his info is most accessible via the website has to do with his audience. And I attended his PHX rally and he talked about a great deal of issues/plan specifics. Sure he still delivered a phenomenal speech, but he DID address his plans (the crowd seemed the most enthusiastic about his education plans, specifically regarding NCLB and the volunteer for scholarships plan, which is FANTASTIC, if you ask me).

Every candidate will attract his/her fair share of uninformed voters...that's natural. Singling out Obama's uninformed voters is a slap in the face to the LARGE number of us who ARE informed. I think it rather foolish to assume that the majority of ANY candidate's supporters are truly "informed". We, at are in the minority in that regard. It should not surprise us that folks will vote for Obama because he's a great speaker and his message rings true with many political cynics. It should not surprise us that folks will vote for Huckabee because he's religious and wants to bring his faith to the American people. A person rarely votes solely on the facts/statistics. Voters are human, after all, and humans will have emotional responses to candidates. I can't fault anyone else for their reasons for voting in a certain way (I might scratch my head and wonder what they're thinking).

Ever since Ronald Reagan, "mainstream America" has been shorthand for "what republicans wish mainstream america was." A little rinky dinky main street decorated with american flags and minds that don't question the president. Thank God that is not mainstream America.

Because, as we have been taught to say, the U S of A is not a liberal nation.

For one, Barack has some positions that will not fly well over "mainstream america." I'm not sure how civil unions will stand in large swaths of this nation... but lets look at the big issues.

Iraq war -- Obama is the only major politician on the national scene, republican or democrat, who opposed this war from the start. Let's see how mainstream america feels about that...



John McCain thinks that America should stick around in Iraq for 100 years. Obama agrees with "mainstream America."

What about torture. Perhaps inspired by his own dazzling biography, McCain II recently voted against McCain I and decided that it was OK for the US government to use waterboarding, regardless of how that could endanger our own troops when they themselves get captured. But does Main Stream America agree with McCain on that one?



CCN Survey says... Nope.

Oh, but you say McCain is just a military man, relying on his military experience to make a decision about war-time interrogations that the American people might not have the stomach for? Let's ask the military how they feel about waterboarding:



Oh, but our republican friends remind us that Main Stream America :usflag is a religious place, defined by faith.



What about wiretapping? McCain raised concerns about wiretapping, but neither he nor Hillary Clinton came around to vote against it. Barack did. How does America feel about that?



52 percent of Americans tlking about impeaching George Bush!? What depravity has o'ertaken our precious Main Stream America?

This is Barack's fault. He came around with his 'change' and 'hope,' hypnotizing the young with his pitch-perfect come-ons, and now all our main streams are opposed to republican policy. Aaaaaaaaaah! Main Stream America opposed to republican p-p-p-policy? That's physically impossible, like a car parked on one wheel, or an ice cap melting. Clearly, Obama-mania is an psychological/emotional phenomenon, a side effect of Bush Derangement Syndrome, anything but a political trend rooted in substance or specifics.

Because the idea that the GOP no longer speaks for that elusive "silent majority" on the top issues would be, politically, too hard to handle. An Inconvenient Truth. Oh, by the way, 68 percent, nearly 7 in ten Americans feel that the government has not done enough to address global warming, too.

For 40 years, since 1968, some of you conservatives have called us liberals 'looneys,' you've likened us to communists and fascists in books and in radio shows. Your president has run attack ads about national security starring WOLVES. Your leaders questioned the patriotism of a senator who left half his body in Vietnam, meanwhile, those same leaders let the VA hospitals crumble to bits while waving the "support our troops" banner. Your leaders have sent American soldiers in an impossible and unnecessary predicament with a bare minimum of contingency planning, and anyone who suggested that this war was ill-thought through on a moral, strategic or tactical basis came out of the process looking like Hanoi Jane, undermining America from the inside out. Your party has politically tarred and feathered any opposition, however meaningful, to the point where a serious contender for the presidency flat-out refused to appoint a muslim to any cabinet position, a promise he made so as to curry favor with an evangelical block doggedly opposed to his own mormonism: at a time, no less, when America is starving for credible perspective on the muslim world. What kind of hell tolerance love your neighbor crap is that?

The GOP has run its course from a big tent to a party of intolerance, and now, after your president made a slow-motion disaster out of America (taking New Orleans and the constitution with him) you can't stomach the thought that Americans are excited about electing a fresh, anti-Iraq war, constitutional law professor, democrat who can string together a sentence again.

Not correct. Ron Paul has opposed the Iraq War from the start.

True. That is why I call him out in each one of the debates as the OTHER avenue for change.

The Republicans elected for more of the same 27 years of big goverment, scandal, too cozy a relationship with big corp USA, ideology run amok, no matter what evidence it is not working, massive fiscal irresponsibility etc.

McCain is an honorable man IMHO, I have nothing that makes me dislike him personally like I do GW, and would be honored to be seen with him or photo op or whatever- he is a product of his generation as well.

However- McCain DOES represent the status quo in a big way.

In other words- no change from the cycle of Bush-Clinton-Bush cycle, at least from a policy standpoint.

With Obama, and a dem led house and senate- we will be able to directly talk about accountability come the next 4-8 years.

Maybe the "change" will be worse- I doubt it- I believe, worst case scenario, we will be at least slightly better off as a nation with a GW-Obama change up.

That being said- Obama could well end up being the chump that has to pay GW bills, and he bobbles the ball himself.

I wanted Ron Paul, probably got Obama. I am okay with that.