Just a hasty observation, but if I was, let's say, Hillary Clinton, I would be delighted with the early excitement over Senator Barack Obama. In fact, I would be fueling it at every turn. I would even attempt to move the media towards Mr. Obama. Why? Because I would want Mr. Obama to peak too early. And it is, quite likely, exactly what he is going to do. People in New Hampshire gathered on Sunday to see the man, to touch the hem of his garment; and I mean people gathered by the thousands. Over 100 reporters captured his every move and jotted down his every word. And all this -- all this money and hoopla and passion -- for a man who has not even announced he is running for president. The only other phenomenon in New Hampshire's primary history that closely resembles the Obama-Nation† was when John F. Kennedy announced his candidacy for president while standing on Main Street in Nashua.
And all this for a man who is, to be honest, utterly unseasoned, with nary a stitch of experience. That some critics of George W. Bush like to point out that he himself was hardly a fireball of political activity prior to his 2ooo run miss several points, the most salient of which is that many Republicans were utterly aware of Bush's lack of experience. In New Hampshire, at least, George W. Bush was hardly a Republican favorite. But at least Bush had some experience simply by being a President's son. I might have this wrong, but George W. actually worked in nearly every office of the White House during the Reagan-Bush years. This qualifies for something, though it does not entitle any man to have the Oval Office.
But I will not detract from Mr. Obama's popularity by suggesting he is too inexperienced. I will merely point out that those who also seek the office can only be encouraged that Mr. Obama is peaking early.
Or so they hope.
THE CULT OF PERSONALITY
I think it is important to note how many folks are indeed already committed to voting for Mr. Obama should he run. How can this be? He is hardly known, he is hardly seasoned in the public eye. On what are his enthusiasts basing their enthusiasm? I have already heard much about his charm and charisma. Is that it? I have heard Harold Ford Jr. describe Mr. Obama as brilliant. But is that all? And I know Mr. Obama has written a couple of books. But is that enough? Is this, at least right now, merely the cult of personality, the adoration of persona? Surely it is not the cult of substance, or the cult of strong political record, right? It is something other than these things. Is it more hosanna politics?
I wonder.
©Bill Gnade 2006/Contratimes - All Rights Reserved.
†I note the word the term Obama-Nation for a host of reasons. Obviously, no supporter of Mr. Obama could ever refer to his followers as Obama-Nation, largely for its homophonic cousin, abomination. Moreover, yesterday I saw the word "obamanible," penned by an Obama defender upset by criticisms over Mr. Obama's middle name (which is Hussein). But Mr. Obama's name will no doubt lend itself to all sorts of wild headlines in the Daily News or New York Post: "Barack Star!" "Running Out Of Money: Barack's B-roke!" "Obama's Meandering State of the Union Speech: Barack's Baroque!" "Southern Vote is Clear: A'bama Says No To Obama!" "Barack Urges Kids: Obey Ma!" OK. These are foolish and, I dare say, unfortunate. But the reality is not to be denied: Headline writers are going to have a field day. "O-BAM!- A: Barack smashes O'Reilly's fastball in Factor interview."
Technorati tags: Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, New Hampshire, Cult of Personality
8 comments:
Weird....just came to search through your archives for info on Obama, and here this was on top. Have you read this, his testimony, of a sort?
When you compare the differences in experience (in terms of writing and world travel) as well as critical thinking and articulation between Bush in 2000 and Obama in 2008, you can understand, Bill, why this essay drew so little response.
Personally, with the recent GOP record in science (actually anti-science), I should think among Republican worse nightmares would be the prospect of running against Al Gore.
Dear friend Vigilante,
I am all ears. What, exactly, is the anti-science record of the GOP? I know that I am often clue-less, so I look forward to you giving me a clue or two.
Regarding any person earning a place in the presidential pantheon, I would concede that in most cases some world travel would be a helpful item on any candidate's resumé. But there is a whole apotheosis of travel that is not only idolatrous, it is self-adoring: travelers often adore their new-found insights to the point of believing they speak with advantage. In the White House, that might be important. But in the realm of ideas, it hardly matters.
Emily Dickinson never left her house; Thoreau locked himself in a cabin; Immanuel Kant was a homebody; Thomas Aquinas sat in a monastery; Jesus never left a region that was probably smaller than Vermont; Michelangelo's passport was surely free of many stamps. Much of a philosopher's or writer's best work happens before he or she goes abroad; it is often their success that gives great thinkers the means to travel.
As for Obama being a writer, I wonder if that will help win voters to his side.
Are you suggesting that Al Gore has a grip on hard science?
Blessings to you!
Gnade
...Shakespeare never went to Italy. Yet most of his plays take place there. I find that we make this sort of stuff an issue when we dislike someone. It's like the interview process. When you don't know the guy experience means everything. When he is referred (wink, wink, nudge, nudge) experience becomes less of a factor. You can still a world travelling dumb ass. As for the GOP being anti-science. Perhaps certain factions within the party are so but I highly doubt that it is a doctrine of the party. It's like saying the GOP start all wars. Which of course is inaccurate.
My apologies. Even with the 'preview' box I make mistakes. So young and impetuous. I meant to say "you can still BE a world travelling dumb ass.'
TC,
RE: travel.
I was recently chided for not being a well-traveled man, and, hence, my opinions were not duly informed (or so it was suggested). Of course, one wonders what "well-traveled" means. Exactly how much travel is required? When has a person traveled enough before he or she is free to opine? Who's to say which countries, which regions, qualify as viable and informative travel destinations?
If I was writing here about Russia, as if I knew Russia, and yet had not ever been to that dear land, one could justly dismiss me as over-reaching. But if I am merely examining ideas, place hardly matters.
But even if I was the most well-traveled man on the planet it would matter little. It is not where you go, it's how you see what you see; it's how you hear what you hear. Donald Rumsfeld has been to Iraq far more times than most of his critics; and yet they know Iraq better than he, since he is allegedly blinded by his own ideology. Democratic Sen. Joe Biden travels to Iraq and sees the very opposite of Rumsfeld: he sees chaos and loss and futility where Rumsfeld sees success and hope. In other words, having all sorts of folks travel to Iraq has not brought them, or us, any great gains. Send an American socialist to Cuba, and he will barely see Castro's grotesque failures: he'll just find proof that America's embargoes are oppressive. Send a laissez-faire capitalist to China and you might not hear about certain gains in Chinese efficiency and profitability. You get the point.
For a good number of my peers, travel is all about gaining leverage over their friends, their co-workers. It is about pride, not fact-finding. It is about boasting, it is about generating envy. Or it is about being an "interesting person." It's the sort of thing that sounds good around a dinner table.
Exactly how much travel is required of a presidential candidate? Some have argued that the presidency in America has become too much about foreign policy; but if that is the case, then maybe LESS world travel and not more is preferrable in a candidate who must address issues on the domestic front. Or is the presidency more about ideas? If so, should we know how many books a candidate has read, and which ones? Are the books the "right ones?" Did he or she read enough of them? And did he read enough "wrong" books to attain sufficient balance?
And if the presidency is about numbers, has the candidate shown proficiency in mathematics, in economics? Under whom did the candidate study? What were his or her GRE scores in mathematics? (And who determines what is proficient and sufficient for a candidate to be viable?)
Mr. Obama could be the most well-traveled man in history. Such a fact does not qualify him for the presidency. Sadly, what does qualify him for the presidency is popularity. I mean, when you get right down to it, popularity is all that finally matters in American elections. It's been that way for quite a while.
But what do I know? I've only to been to Great Britain.
Peace.
BG
Bill, your non-sequiturs are dauntingly ubiquitous and, I'm afraid, diagnostic. I am not repelled by your good manners and affable nature, of course. but by the depths of your political innocence. Not a man of leisure, I cannot afford the time necessary to provide you with many of the 'clues' you are lacking which could afford you an understanding of our modern world.
So, my advice to you is to remain in the world of the classics where your mastery is not to be questioned. Play to your strong suit: contemplate contemporary America under the guidance of President Dickinson, President Thoreau, President Kant, President Aquinas, President Jesus and President Michelangelo. Any and all of that will spare you the angst of dealing with Bushworld and I will always envy you.
Commentator, you make an excellent point about factions in the GOP. I was previously painting with a broad brush. I sometimes confuse silence of some factions with compliance with the dominant strain in the current Republican party.
Post a Comment