From the 6/4/08 issue of "Capitol Fax" written by Rich Miller (a newsletter that covers the Illinois General Assembly political scene): ( Read more... )
I think it's sad that he's had to hide or bury really important aspects of himself to "fit in" -- but I Think that's the sacrifice (unfortunately) that people make when they get to that level! *smooches*
Hey there! He's *your* Senator now, too, kiddo. Perhaps we should start a third party in IL - not that with our porn-writing we can ever run for office!
What you're sharing is interesting. Speaking as someone whose first experience of Obama was the Democratic National Convention in '04, I haven't seen that kind of change. Ditto from the beginning of this campaign. I think a lot of what he's done has been as "The Candidate" with an amazing ability to bring out something *else* when he needs it. Or at least that what's it's seemed like from this distance.
I think you put your finger on it -- and pointed out quite rightly that I'm not seeing him in the same way as those from other states. It's that "something else" that made me excited about his candidacy, and I'm very much hoping it doesn't get locked away in a drawer for the duration.
Sorry, from my neutral position (actually not quite because I want a Democrat to win so much it hurts) I'm not sure a President should be seen as having real faults and foibles. Bush made a career out of being your reg'lar buddy who was just the guy next door and millions believed him. McCain is trying the same thing
( ... )
But I question if the media and the requirements of running for office making a candidate one-dimensional will equate to being "seen as having integrity, honesty, determination and vision along with a great love for country and a compassion for the role it plays in the world."
As you point out, Bush (and others before him) played a role that voters (stupid voters, imo) found "likeable." What you're calling "presidential" they call elitist, probably because they're led there by our media. I personally have no desire to have a president who's "like me" in any way -- I want the leader of our country to be smarter, stronger, etc. But (going back as far as Stevenson vs. Eisenhower) that's not what our voters seem to want.
That article you quoted from? Big boo hoo to that guy. let's call the waaaaahmbulance. My view is let's hope Obama gets wrapped up and perceived as The Candidate. Otherwise he gets eaten up. Perhaps he gets eaten up anyway. But that's none of our business. That's his business and the business of those who are close to him.
Our business is to evaluate what he says and does with respect to how he proposes to lead the country (and the effect it will have on the rest of the world).
The rest is just personal reaction. Understandable in the case of the guy who wrote the boo hoo article ... but it lies in the personal realm.
I don't think you're being too harsh, but I do wonder if there's any way to "evaluate what he says and does with respect to how he proposes to lead the country (and the effect it will have on the rest of the world)" if all we're seeing is a one-dimensional, sound-byte version of Obama (or any candidate). It's not that I'm worried that Obama will lose his soul or his friends -- it's that I doubt any of us know who or what we're voting for besides a party platform. And since the way the parties come up with those documents are dominated by the extremists, I'm not sure we know anything.
You're3 right, of course. And you think I'd be used to it by now... There is a part of me that thinks the primaries are too much like a reality show where the media acts as producer/editor and only shows us what they want us to think. So-and-so is whiny, so-and-so is "nice," and we just nod and call it our civic duty.
I'm still in full on pout mode, so I'm probably not ready to find the 'inner good' in Obama. What I do understand is being disappointed at the change that almost has to occur before 'your guy' becomes The Candidate.
I have an in-law, who, after years of prodding on the part of the rest of us, has joined in the circus of local politics. It's in a decent sized city (by Southern standards) and he's finding his feet with the media. But I've seen, for the first time, a bit of a public face. We'd talked a lot in the past about the level to which he could aspire without becoming beholden to one lobby or the other, not having the bazillions it apparently takes to run a campaign in this country. We never discussed, though, at what level the shiny happy face would have to appear. Apparently it's now. And he's just a councilman, looking mebbe as far as Tallahassee. I don't think we have a hope of seeing the real Obama for the next, say eight or nine years.
Pout-mode because of John Edwards or because of Ms. Clinton? (Inquiring minds want to know if she was second choice.)
It just makes the whole notion of people voting because they LIKE someone really ridiculous. Yet lots of those I talk to give such vague reasons...
We haven't (yet) become the country ruled by ex-movie stars, but it seems that we're asking anyone who wants an elected office to take up amateur dramatics.
Comments 16
Reply
Reply
Free pr0n for all!!
Reply
Reply
Reply
Reply
As you point out, Bush (and others before him) played a role that voters (stupid voters, imo) found "likeable." What you're calling "presidential" they call elitist, probably because they're led there by our media. I personally have no desire to have a president who's "like me" in any way -- I want the leader of our country to be smarter, stronger, etc. But (going back as far as Stevenson vs. Eisenhower) that's not what our voters seem to want.
Reply
That article you quoted from? Big boo hoo to that guy. let's call the waaaaahmbulance. My view is let's hope Obama gets wrapped up and perceived as The Candidate. Otherwise he gets eaten up. Perhaps he gets eaten up anyway. But that's none of our business. That's his business and the business of those who are close to him.
Our business is to evaluate what he says and does with respect to how he proposes to lead the country (and the effect it will have on the rest of the world).
The rest is just personal reaction. Understandable in the case of the guy who wrote the boo hoo article ... but it lies in the personal realm.
Sorry to be harsh!
Reply
Reply
Reply
Reply
I have an in-law, who, after years of prodding on the part of the rest of us, has joined in the circus of local politics. It's in a decent sized city (by Southern standards) and he's finding his feet with the media. But I've seen, for the first time, a bit of a public face. We'd talked a lot in the past about the level to which he could aspire without becoming beholden to one lobby or the other, not having the bazillions it apparently takes to run a campaign in this country. We never discussed, though, at what level the shiny happy face would have to appear. Apparently it's now. And he's just a councilman, looking mebbe as far as Tallahassee. I don't think we have a hope of seeing the real Obama for the next, say eight or nine years.
Reply
It just makes the whole notion of people voting because they LIKE someone really ridiculous. Yet lots of those I talk to give such vague reasons...
We haven't (yet) become the country ruled by ex-movie stars, but it seems that we're asking anyone who wants an elected office to take up amateur dramatics.
Reply
Oh!!
Because of John Edwards!
I should have made that clearer.
*strokes icon*
Hillary Clinton has always made me twitch.
*scrubs a rant on shameless opportunism*
And I agree. We certainly do want the full put-up. Honesty, integrity, well, ok...but really good hair?? Now *that's* a candidate!
Reply
Leave a comment