"Undermining my electoral viability since 2001."

Why I Distrust Barak Obama

This is exceedingly clever work:

Barak Obama is an excellent performer, on par with Reagan and Clinton before him. He's got a lot of people who are quite excited about him running for the White House in 2008, and he would most likely make a great and interesting candidate. However, I find that I distrust him.

Why? Because he's a cypher, in his own words "a blank screen on which people of vastly different political stripes project their own views." What leads to my distrust is not that he's unwilling to take a stand on any issue of substance, or that he has a habit of reiterating right-wing stereotypes about Democrats -- although those are annoying -- it's that he's deliberately and consciously crafting himself as a vessel for unfulfilled political desire, a non-reciprocating repository for the Public's most heartfelt hopes. I find it impossible to believe that this is not a matter of calculation, and I find it to be quite a turn-off.

In essence, his position amounts to "I'm Barak Obama, and I endorse my popularity, and want to support your belief in me to do Good Things." It's a smart, risk-averse tactic to take for now, and he's perhaps a convincing enough player to pull it off through most of the pre-primary heat. As I said, an Obama for President campaign would be a sure hummdinger, but I find this makes me nervous and pessimistic about his potential as a leader. I don't want yet another actor president.

Responses

You get it in spite of yourself. Focusing on attitude and identity over substance is the smoothest path to victory. That's exactly what's amatter with Kansas, right?

I think it's a perfect 'campaign' so far. Positions will materialize eventually--probably not soon, but there's 13 months til Iowa.

p.s. Once he declares, his enemies will start using his full name, Barack Hussein Obama.

This has nothing to do with Sen. Obama, but I thought you'd appreciate it:

http://community.livejournal.com/pantsketch/99256.html

come on. he's competent. i'm as allergic to joe 'good feelings, love me, loving you' people, but for candidates--that's electability. he could be (maybe not yet) the guy who can win with the least baggage. remember kerry? (spent too much time trying to make nuanced, educated points) gore? (couldn't make any point with a smile on his face) dean? (closest we've come to this, but who may have lacked the final polish necessary). i don't like theater-educated bloggers, but they're the ones that get readers. and maybe this country could use someone with a touch of unifying rhetoric in him. we should go after the issues, but i think it would be good if we could elect a clean face who's not going to alienate everyone just by being elected (i.e. not hillary). Actors can do good things, /because/ they're actors. and this one's a f@#%$@#$ Democrat. hater.

I don't like losing, but I don't want to "win" (the election) and "lose" anyway with a candidate who's become a catch-all rather than a leader, resulting in a lot of broken expectations, brand regression, and continued status quo at best (e.g. Clinton Redux). But shit, it's not like I wouldn't vote for this guy in a general election. I'd vote for Hillary or any of those other people too.

Alls I'm saying is I find this style of campaign to be a turn-off. It's not what I want from political leadership. In many ways, it's the inverse of what I found so appealing about the Dean campaign.

I'd like to like Obama, but the more I see the more I don't. At some point supporting a candidate you'll never really know is an act of faith, but this guy hasn't shown me anything other than a nice resume and some smooth talk, and the sheer manipulativeness of it gives me pause alone.

And I do tend to think that he's probably got a very good chance, which is why I think it's all the more pressing to get some sense of what the fuck he's all about. Adulation won't do that. I'd be fine with him running the most vapid and personality-driven TV campaign if there were also some kind of "other side" to it. Isn't that what the internet is for?

Joe's point that there's 13 months until Iowa is dead on though. Nobody's going to be taking strong stands now. It would still be nice to know what the plan is.

Also, I still don't think adulation (which is what he's getting from a lot of quarters) is going to necessarily drive the best positions when they eventually materialize. The closed nature of his operation makes me worry about who's giving him his information.

Thanks for articulating something I've been struggling with for awhile. I read his books, saw his 04 speech, and really liked the guy, I was attracted. Then as time has gone on, I've had a naggin feeling aout him that I couldn't put into words, and I think what you said about him being a blank slate and an empty vessel hits it on the head. That being said, those things are what will win him the election, look at Bush in 2000(did he really win, who knows, but he did get almost 50% of the electorate), Clinton in 92, hell look to Deval Patrick in MA just recently. They all focused on the personality, the hope, compassionate conservatism, whatever it was. But none of those driving messages were solid stances, or real plans. America is an inherently optimistic place, and if a candidate can tap into that optimism and attach it to him/herself, then they've got the edge. Policy will come later, I mean, hell, after World Aids Day, everyone knows he's pro-choice and pro-stem cell research.

I don't know if the Barack Hussein Obama thing will be a big issue, but this kind of move(the video) and what he's been doing recently, is a great way to combat that. Hit the daytime talk shows, then late night talk shows, then Monday Night Football. Right there he's gotten to most of the demographics(that would be up for grabs in 08) that his name might be an issue with, and they now know his face and his name, and that he's not a terrorist holed up in Pakistan. Now tell me how Hillary is going to reach to middle America and make them forget that they hated her not so long ago? He's already campaigning, he just needs to announce it.

As for him being slick, well, after Kerry and Gore, anyone is slick. Secondly, with the Republican machine, the Dems will need someone slick. I still don't know how I feel about the guy(that nagging feeling is still there), but let's be honest, he's probably the best guy in town at the moment, short voting record that won't hinder him, extreme likability, almost a cult-like fervent following one year out, the American dream story line, and it goes on.

He may get elected on that alone. Let's hope for the voters who look for more substance, he offers it before November '08.

i almost had to get out the calcultor. i agree with you folks for the most part. but to be honest, i'm a little worried that if he came out with the substance that i want, he couldn't get elected. (which makes me question my committment to democracy, i know) moreover, i'd be willing to take my chances with a slick, liberalish democrat with comparatively less political debt than other candidates. but i'm guessing your point on substance and a plan is on domestic reform--and i think it will be a little while before we see a candidate run on that.

This is an issue I deeply need to address more and I'm very glad for your POV. It would help me to know though, how do you feel about the prototype of Bobby Kennedy. Sure, ignoring him pre-64, but really, how do you feel about who he was and what he was 64-68?

Peace, Joshua.

I don't have a deep historical understanding and clearly I wasn't alive in 64-68. So take that as a disclaimer.

However, it seemed to me that RFK changed a lot being Governor of NY, and found his way into the '68 campaign at least in part because people (at least felt that they) understood him and believed in him and wanted him to be their leader.

By contrast, Obama has no significant accomplishments to speak of or to base himself around: his image is largely a projection of media and the people's desire for new leadership. He's got an ok voting record, but hasn't really championed anything definitive and this is somewhat more "smoke and mirrors" than Bobby. Not necessarily his fault, but there it is.

I think the most striking thing about RFK in 64-68 (and revealing vs Obama) is how willing Kennedy was to take risks, seemingly in the belief that bold/principled moves are actually better governing and political tactics than splitting differences. That's a strategic gestalt that I embrace. While compromise is a big part of governing effectively, it's the lesser part as opposed to leadership, and it's the much lesser part of a good campaign.

That being said, RFK clearly also embraced and traded on his near mythical Kennedy mystique, which is similar in effect to the media rockstar status Obama currently enjoys. You use what you got.

I think Obama can keep his current style working until Memorial Day at the latest, at which point it will be impossible to sustain a persona-based candidacy. Depending on how the others go after him in the upcoming candidate forums, it may not last past February.

It will certainly be interesting to see.

I had a really interesting conversation with Bill Moyers at the Riverside Church's Martin Luther King Jr. Memorial where John Edwards was the keynote speaker.

Moyers said that in some ways, Obama has the advantage on the Bobby Kennedy aura compared to Edwards despite the fact that Obama will most likely run a Humphrey '68 campaign.

Most interestingly, we discussed how the biggest obstacles to Edwards securing the mantle of RFK is the essence of FutureMajorty.com

The full story is over here

Pages