"The One"

[pseudotriton ruber ruber]

Here's a meme that's interesting to me, because it seems so odd. I don't know a single Democrat who ever subscribed to Obama-worship, yet it's a standard for tighty-wrighteys to harp on, with a maximum of froth, sneering, mockery, snottiness, just as if it there were a shred of substance to it. Well, I guess there is a shred: Democrats were generally supportive of his candidacy and (except for a few late Hillary-boosters) seemed to accept him as their standard-bearer throughout the 2008 campaign. IOW, there was little dissention in the ranks and he was elected with a minimum of Democratic in-fighting past the summer of 2008. But where does the protracted "The One" rhetoric from our tighty-wrightey brethren come? Jealousy? A lack of substantial policy disagreement? Racism? Desperation? Someone 'splain this to me.

[Ravenman]

The Republican party has adopted a tactic over the last ten years or so to attempt to make opponents' greatest strengths their greatest weaknesses. For example, John Kerry was indeed a decorated sailor, but that was turned against him with the whole Swiftboating thing.

More or less the same thing with Obama. He ran a very strong campaign and had very high popularity ratings with liberals and moderates, and even quite a few conservatives admired the guy despite disagreements -- his approval rating was what, closing in on like 75 percent at the time of his inauguration. So, in order to attack the guy, Republican spinmeisters started saying, "Well SURE everyone likes the guy -- everyone is a sucker!! U R all teh stupid!! Obama and seven out of ten Americans, sittin' in a tree..."

I don't think there's that much more significance to it than that.

[Gyrate]

It's the assumption that liberals are like conservatives and are fiercely dogmatic and tribal, supporting Obama because he's on their side of the fence regardless of his actual policies or actions. Obama doesn't get a fraction of the hero worship the rabid Right devote to Ronald Reagan, yet for some reason it's the Left who have drunk the Messiah Kool-Aid.

Also on topic: I want to solicit a little more love for this post of mine (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=14038281&postcount=518).

[tnetennba]

It's also a tactic of the right to take their own failings and accuse their opponents of it. They have complete, fervent, unquestioning commitment to a bunch of morons and sociopaths, so they accuse Dems of having the same blind fealty. The irony is that the Dems biggest weakness is endlessly harping on their own candidates and hamstringing themselves. Obama (like Clinton) can't do anything without being rebuked by the VirginLeft.

[Snowboarder Bo]

I noticed this also and started a thread in GD about it to explore what was going on.

Why monikers, righties? (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=576606)

Basically, the people on the right who were seeking to label is as a non-issue or attribute some sort of false equivalence to actions of people on the left were unable to do so over the course of a 3 page discussion.

Name-calling, even when those names are falsely applied, seems to just be something people on the right embrace.

[tnetennba]

To be fair, people on the left do plenty of name calling. Bachmann has become synonymous with "crazy."

But there's some traction there. Calling Obama "The One" is based on a complete fiction, and one which requires a preposterous lack of reflection. Can you talk to Palin supporters and suppose Obama's supporters are the faith-based followers?

[BigT]

It's based entirely on the rallies where people were chanting and stuff, and the "hope and change" message. On the religious right, anyone who is popular that you don't like must be from some cult--see Harry Potter, Pokemon, D&D, etc. And see Twilight for the opposite phenomenon, where they liked it, so it was okay, despite having the same problematic features of two of those.

I would even say that some people did think Obama was going to change the world, so, while it's always been wrong, it was less wrong in the past.

[Snowboarder Bo]

To be fair, people on the left do plenty of name calling. Bachmann has become synonymous with "crazy."

But there's some traction there. Calling Obama "The One" is based on a complete fiction, and one which requires a preposterous lack of reflection. Can you talk to Palin supporters and suppose Obama's supporters are the faith-based followers?

Check out posts #65-68 in the "monikers" thread I linked to.

[Marley23]

I don't know a single Democrat who ever subscribed to Obama-worship, yet it's a standard for tighty-wrighteys to harp on, with a maximum of froth, sneering, mockery, snottiness, just as if it there were a shred of substance to it.
The Republicans define Obama worship as they see fit, the same way Democrats apply epithets against Republicans as they see fit. I saw some Democrats with unrealisticexpectations of Obama and some with wildly unrealistic expectations, but nothing I'd call worship.

But where does the protracted "The One" rhetoric from our tighty-wrightey brethren come?
Of course, most directly it comes from Oprah. (http://edition.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/12/08/oprah.obama/index.html)

"I've never taken this kind of risk before nor felt compelled to stand up and speak out before because there wasn't anyone to to stand up and speak up for," Winfrey told thousands of people in Cedar Rapids Saturday evening.

"We need a president who can bring us all together," she said. "I know [Barack Obama] is the one."
So it does come from somewhere. She said he was "the one" who could bring all Americans together, which is unrealistic but not, say, Mayan prophecy or a prediction that he's the Messiah. If you looked hard enough you could probably find a comment like this about every major presidential candidate in the last couple of decades. Lots of people say their preferred candidate can do something like this.

It's also worth noting that the whole "The One" thing happened in a year where most Democrats (and some independents) were very excited about the Democratic candidate and many Republicans were not excited about their candidate. So in other words, it was sour grapes to some extent.

[Jas09]

Yeah, there were definitely some moments during the campaign that fed directly into these memes. College girls fainting, Oprah being Oprah, some of Obama's phrasings ("We are the ones we've been waiting for", "This is when the seas stop rising..."). He built a lot of his campaign around large crowds of enthusiastic supporters.

It's pretty natural for an opponent to attack that, or attempt to deflate it. It's not that dissimilar from lefties attacking the populist stylings of Palin/Bachmann and calling them stupid - that "down-to-earth" "folksy" messaging is the entire basis of their appeal (at least to some people).

[pseudotriton ruber ruber]

He built a lot of his campaign around large crowds of enthusiastic supporters.


OMG! Stop the presses! A candidate won by getting a lot people to gather around at his rallies? Wow, no one ever has done that before, and I'm sure that those who attracted even moderate-sized crowds got all sorts of mockery for doing even that.

Thanks, marley, for sourcing "the one" talk to Oprah, though in context it's a nothing sort of endorsement. Specifically, she seemed to be saying that he's "the one" candidate who could unite us, not divide us. Now, where have I heard that before?....

[Jas09]

OMG! Stop the presses! A candidate won by getting a lot people to gather around at his rallies? Wow, no one ever has done that before, and I'm sure that those who attracted even moderate-sized crowds got all sorts of mockery for doing even that.I don't believe any candidate had rallies of the size Obama did. I know I've never heard of a crowd anywhere near what we had in St. Louis for a presidential candidate. I also have never heard of a convention speech being held at a football stadium because the original venue was too small.

The large crowd of swooning supporters was a big deal, and it's pretty natural to attack that. I don't see anything odd about it at all. I'm not saying it's a valid attack, just a natural one.

[Larry Borgia]

It wasn't just Republicans who used that meme, Clinton did too. And as a couple posters have pointed out, it fit some Obama supporters pretty well. While I think most of us were on the "He's not great but he's sure better than the other guy" there were a few people who went completely batshit over him. I had a person stop speaking to me because I was insufficiently enthusiastic about him, and there were a couple of people on this very board who were delirious in their praise. "His only flaw is that he's to good a man for us" is one thing somebody said. And of course their wax a lot of perfectly understandable excitement in the black community and among civil rights supporters in general over his candidacy.

That said, the way some conservatives use it is jaw droppingly juvenile.

[Mr. Moto]

Yeah, there were definitely some moments during the campaign that fed directly into these memes. College girls fainting, Oprah being Oprah, some of Obama's phrasings ("We are the ones we've been waiting for", "This is when the seas stop rising..."). He built a lot of his campaign around large crowds of enthusiastic supporters.

The one I felt was most worthy of ridicule was Demi Moore and Ashton Kutcher's video where they and other celebrities pledged to "...be a servant to our president and all mankind."

That's just creepy, and indeed there was a bit share of criticism across the spectrum about this.

[Marley23]

some of Obama's phrasings ("We are the ones we've been waiting for", "This is when the seas stop rising...").
I'm going to defend the second one a bit here, partly just because I liked the language. But he did not say "this is when the seas stop rising." What he said was this:

The journey will be difficult. The road will be long. I face this challenge with profound humility, and knowledge of my own limitations. But I also face it with limitless faith in the capacity of the American people. Because if we are willing to work for it, and fight for it, and believe in it, then I am absolutely certain that generations from now, we will be able to look back and tell our children that this was the moment when we began to provide care for the sick and good jobs to the jobless; this was the moment when the rise of the oceans began to slow and our planet began to heal; this was the moment when we ended a war and secured our nation and restored our image as the last, best hope on Earth. This was the moment - this was the time - when we came together to remake this great nation so that it may always reflect our very best selves, and our highest ideals. Thank you, God Bless you, and may God Bless the United States of America.

He built a lot of his campaign around large crowds of enthusiastic supporters.
While it's natural for an opponent to attack this, it's also true that if you have people doing this kind of thing in support of your campaign, you build around it.

[pseudotriton ruber ruber]

I can understand where some black supporters got excited about finally having one of their own as a candidate, but who (other than a racist) can't sympathize with that feeling, even if they don't agree politically. And I agree that Hilary did go too far in not denouncing "The One" talk coming from her supporters. So it seems legitimate, or at least understandable, via three sources:

1) some (black?) supporters did go over the top, for understandable reasons

2) Oprah, if we take her words out of context, did refer to him as "the One"

3) some of the mockery began with Hillary, and the Pubbies just ran with that, having little else to criticize Obama for

[Jas09]

The one I felt was most worthy of ridicule was Demi Moore and Ashton Kutcher's video where they and other celebrities pledged to "...be a servant to our president and all mankind."

That's just creepy, and indeed there was a bit share of criticism across the spectrum about this.Yup. One could add in that semi-creepy school-children thing as well.
That said, the way some conservatives use it is jaw droppingly juvenile.Amen.

And on preview, Marley, I actually kinda liked that part of the speech too (and know a number of non-partisans that really liked it), but it is pretty easy to twist into a "Obama thinks he can stop the seas from rising" moment.

Here is the McCain ad (web only, I think) from kinda late in the campaign that played up this angle: http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/08/01/mccain-ad-mocks-obama-as-the-one/

[Mr. Moto]

When was that moment a war ended? I must have missed that moment.

[Happy Lendervedder]

The Republicans saw enormous amounts of people flocking to his rallies and wearing his shirts and all of those fancy red, white and blue "Hope" signs, and they wanted to figure out a way to embarrass people for going to the rallies, wearing the shirts, hanging the signs, etc.

Mocking people's enthusiasm can be a pretty effective way to curb their enthusiasm.

Example: When I was a pre-teen, the Detroit Pistons (my team) beat the Lakers for the championship. I bought a shirt that said, in huge letters, "WE BEAT L.A." I was walking down the street one day wearing it, and some older kid yelled out at me sarcastically, "We beat LA? Are you kidding me? What? Thanks for filling me in, buddy, I had no idea!" Sensitive lad that I was, that one asshole comment took the wind out of my sails, embarrassed me and I never wore that shirt again.

I think the Republicans hoped that mocking Obama supporters over their "hero worship"-- really nothing more than just enthusiasm over a dynamic and historic candidate-- would shame them into not being so enthusiastic.

[Jas09]

When was that moment a war ended? I must have missed that moment.I believe the technical answer is August 19, 2010 (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/08/18/AR2010081805644.html).

Obviously, YMMV (as does mine).

[Bryan Ekers]

Conservatives secretly want to hook up with Obama in an airport restroom.

[Little Nemo]

There were some people (including some on this board) who had a messianic feeling for Obama (and may still have). However most people who supported Obama did so for rational reasons and with full awareness he was a fallible human being.

The reason Obama's opponents like to talk about "The One" is because it's a useful fiction for denying there are real reasons to support Obama. They just claim that anyone who votes for him is irrationally subject to his charisma and that they, the rational ones, see through it to the truth.

In some cases, this is just people saying what they're got to say - they have to come up with some explanation for Obama's popularity that doesn't concede there's a basis for it. And in other cases, it's reflective of the people making the claim - they vote for irrational reasons so they assume everyone else does as well.

[RTFirefly]

You know which Presidential candidate's campaign organization repeatedly claimed he was "the one"?

Richard Nixon.

No, really!

"Nixon's the One" was his offical campaign slogan back in 1968. We Youth for Nixon volunteers (yes, 'we,' I was in the Youth for Nixon back in the day) were even given this song to sing:

Nixon's the one, Nixon's the one,
Nixon's the one for me.
We believe in Nixon, N-I-X-O-N,
Nixon's the one for me.

So there you have it: in Presidential politics, "The One" was the GOP's own future felon, Tricky Dick.

[Ají de Gallina]

There were some people (including some on this board) who had a messianic feeling for Obama (and may still have).
(snipped)


For me, it was pretty much that. I bit of good-natured mockery, nothing more complex.
I dropped it a long time ago.






.....and of course that he is the muslim-Kenyan-commie antichrist.

[Mr. Moto]

You know which Presidential candidate's campaign organization repeatedly claimed he was "the one"?

That's nothing compared to a Democratic congressman who wrote and sang "Still the One." (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Hall_%28U.S._politician%29)

;)

[Little Nemo]

That's nothing compared to a Democratic congressman who wrote and sang "Still the One." (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Hall_%28U.S._politician%29)

;)I used to live in NY's 19th district. Then I moved to NY's 26th district. For some reason my congressmen can't keep their shirts on.

[Mr. Moto]

I used to live in NY's 19th district. Then I moved to NY's 26th district. For some reason my congressmen can't keep their shirts on.

Seems to be a general problem with New York congressmen, innit?

[Marley23]

Seems to be a general problem with New York congressmen, innit?
Fortunately the ones in really terrible shape know to keep their shirts on.

[mlees]

Fortunately the ones in really terrible shape know to keep their shirts on.

The horror




The horror

[Mr. Moto]

The horror




The horror

Leave poor Congressman Nadler alone.

[dropzone]

The one I felt was most worthy of ridicule was Demi Moore and Ashton Kutcher's video where they and other celebrities pledged to "...be a servant to our president and all mankind."

That's just creepy, and indeed there was a bit share of criticism across the spectrum about this.Jesus. If I had known about that I might not have voted for Obama. Yes, we Dems really are that cranky and self-destructive, but just LOOK at it. <pukey smilie>

[Little Nemo]

The one I felt was most worthy of ridicule was Demi Moore and Ashton Kutcher's video where they and other celebrities pledged to "...be a servant to our president and all mankind."

That's just creepy, and indeed there was a bit share of criticism across the spectrum about this.I think Kutcher was just setting up Kal Penn.

"Well, Obama was elected and I did like we promised. I've signed up to serve in the Obama administration."
"We were just messing with you, dude. Demi and I aren't giving up our sweet jobs in Hollywood."
"What? But I quit my job on House."
"Seriously? You quit a job in a top-rating television series to be an associate director of public engagement?"
"Oh God, what have I done? They killed my character..."
"You just got punk'd!"

[ElvisL1ves]

There were some people (including some on this board) who had a messianic feeling for Obama (and may still have). Sure were, and the OP knows it too. :dubious: We were even treated to a post stating a desire to fellate him. And, of course, we had the flip side of that messianism - excoriation of anyone who suggested that he might not be the strongest candidate or the most effective and progressive President from among the Democratic candidates. And I'm sure the OP remembers that part, too.

The reason Obama's opponents like to talk about "The One" is because it's a useful fiction for denying there are real reasons to support Obama.Or to point out that embracing a cult of personality, a phenomenon which as you just pointed out does exist, is not acting as responsibly as a citizen must. That problem does exist for progressives as well as for regressives.

[pseudotriton ruber ruber]

Sure were, and the OP knows it too. .

Oh, give it up, man. She lost fair and square.

[Little Nemo]

Or to point out that embracing a cult of personality, a phenomenon which as you just pointed out does exist, is not acting as responsibly as a citizen must. That problem does exist for progressives as well as for regressives.I said it was true for some people. But it certainly was not the reason why most of the people who voted for Obama did so.

[ElvisL1ves]

Oh, give it up, man. She lost fair and square.When did I ever say she didn't? :dubious:

Thanks, btw, for providing a fine example of the very problem we're discussing - that of ascribing the motives of anyone who thinks another candidate might be better to being simply mindless emotionalism. As well as, of course, for pointing out that you do, in fact, remember, despite your assertion of innocence in the OP. :dubious:

I said it was true for some people. You did state it in a blanketish sort of way, you know.

[Typo Knig]

You'd think the R team would give up on that meme, after it lost them a battle of wits against Paris Hilton. :confused:

http://www.funnyordie.com/videos/64ad536a6d/paris-hilton-responds-to-mccain-ad-from-paris-hilton-adam-ghost-panther-mckay-and-chris-henchy

[RTFirefly]

You'd think the R team would give up on that meme, after it lost them a battle of wits against Paris Hilton. :confused:

http://www.funnyordie.com/videos/64ad536a6d/paris-hilton-responds-to-mccain-ad-from-paris-hilton-adam-ghost-panther-mckay-and-chris-henchyA group that lost a battle of wits with Paris Hilton should commit mass suicide, as a favor to the continued evolution of the human race.

Oh, that's right - those clowns don't believe in evolution. Never mind. :D

[furt]

Here's a meme that's interesting to me, because it seems so odd. I don't know a single Democrat who ever subscribed to Obama-worship ...Really? (http://jimgetzen.net/wp-content/uploads/2011/05/Obama_messiah.jpg)

You can't recall any instances of people speaking of Obama like a god-like figure? (http://newsbusters.org/blogs/kyle-drennen/2009/06/05/newsweek-s-evan-thomas-obama-sort-god?utm_campaign=grims&utm_content=bookmarklet-twitter&utm_medium=gri.ms-twitter&utm_source=direct-gri.ms)

Or media depictions of him as such? (http://www.fireandreamitchell.com/wp-content/gallery/obama-satire/obama-lord-shiva.jpg)

You can't think of any embarassingly obsequious news coverage? (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/02/13/chris-matthews-i-felt-thi_n_86449.html)

You wouldn't find this a subject of mockery were people teaching children to sing songs about George Bush? (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KI-BCbKuJGA)

Not sure I can help, then.

[Shodan]

None of that counts. Because it's different.

Regards,
Shodan

[mlees]

I was thinking about that Chris Mathews one. While he was definately emotional, I cut him a little slack. He felt he was part of something historical.

I would have felt chills and goosebumps if I was in Mission Control during the Apollo 11 moon landings. But not because I wanted to genuflect to Gene Kranz.

[Chronos]

OK, so for examples of Obama-worship, we have:
1: A picture on the front of a magazine showing him in a flattering pose and lighting, with the most divine word on the whole cover being "hope".
2: A reporter pointing out that the office of the Presidency wields god-like power
3: A magazine which is making the implication that Obama can't handle all the challenges of the Presidency, because he'd need to be Shiva to do so.
4: A reporter who found him inspiring to an embarrassing degree, but who still didn't attach any religious imagery to him.
5: Kids who think that Obama will be capable of leadership.

Is that the best you can do?

[pseudotriton ruber ruber]

Really? (http://jimgetzen.net/wp-content/uploads/2011/05/Obama_messiah.jpg)

You can't recall any instances of people speaking of Obama like a god-like figure? (http://newsbusters.org/blogs/kyle-drennen/2009/06/05/newsweek-s-evan-thomas-obama-sort-god?utm_campaign=grims&utm_content=bookmarklet-twitter&utm_medium=gri.ms-twitter&utm_source=direct-gri.ms)

Or media depictions of him as such? (http://www.fireandreamitchell.com/wp-content/gallery/obama-satire/obama-lord-shiva.jpg)

You can't think of any embarassingly obsequious news coverage? (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/02/13/chris-matthews-i-felt-thi_n_86449.html)

You wouldn't find this a subject of mockery were people teaching children to sing songs about George Bush? (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KI-BCbKuJGA)

Not sure I can help, then.

Did somebody furt in here?


Oh, well, at least I've gotten some of the frothers to out themselves. As Chronos points out, was this really the droids you were searching for? I admit, I laughed at Mathews at the time, but he's an embarrssingly poor wordsmith, clumsily phrasing the excitement he felt at the Democrats nominating an inspirational leader. Even that, though, wasn't what I'd call any Democrat I respect losing his mind over Obama's rich chocolately goodness. Christ, the man steps on his dick verbally about three times per week, and I've got the parodies of his verbal diarrhea to prove it.

Most of the links above are pretty mild compared to the propaganda you folks swooned over when it was King Ronnie's coronation time--it's pretty funny to hear you denouncing it now as completely without precedent in American politics.

[marshmallow]

Back in 2008 the adulation over Obama was embarrassing. It died out around the economic downturn. But for about a year and a half this guy had a rock star vibe. People were getting misty eyed and choking up when he was elected. It was just a sad spectacle.

Bush had a similar aura after 9/11 that was later denied by certain sectors, except it was less about him than an excuse for foaming at the mouth jingoism. Obama seemed to get more of the screaming and "take me now!" support from women; Bush was more about the manly pax-Americana types. And he fueled the fire with some face palm worthy cowboy lines.

I bet you remember that one though, right?

[pseudotriton ruber ruber]

Back in 2008 the adulation over Obama was embarrassing. It died out around the economic downturn. But for about a year and a half this guy had a rock star vibe. People were getting misty eyed and choking up when he was elected. It was just a sad spectacle.


Well, that's certainly irrefutable--you were embarrassed to feel a rock star vibe, and see "people" getting emotional. Certainly shuts my mouth up tight.

I did see some outpouring of emotion from Obama's base, which was educated African-Americans, who probably voted for him over 98%, but in their case, I can understand venting emotion, as he personally embodied hopes and dreams they've had to keep pent up for hundreds of years--but most white liberals I know just expressed the sort of positive emotions they've expressed for other Democrats they felt good about, nothing special. White Southern Democrats felt that way about Carter and Clinton, anti-war Democrats felt that way about McGovern, and don't even get me started on wrighties fawning and making a hoopla about Reagan and Nixon, who as people have noted actually used "Nixon's the One" as his fucking campaign slogan. But I still don't get why this is so offensive to you in Obama's case--it's a total non-issue, and you'll go to your graves muttering "The One? Like Obama's the freakin' Messiah? Yeah, right..." as the last bit of froth and drool exits your mouths. Don't you hjave any policy positions of his that you disagree about? Or does it just bother you that Democrats see things differently from you?

[Marley23]

Back in 2008 the adulation over Obama was embarrassing. It died out around the economic downturn.
You have a timeline problem here - the economic downturn started before he took office, and it started affecting his approval ratings and popularity in much less than a year and a half. It took a couple of months.

People were getting misty eyed and choking up when he was elected. It was just a sad spectacle.
I hardly expect everyone to share the enthusiasm of a Jesse Jackson (despite what he said about Obama not long before the election). But it's kind of sad if you can't understand why someone would get emotional at the election of the first African-American president of the U.S. The reasons should be obvious to anyone who has even heard of the civil rights movement.

[Marley23]

Did somebody furt in here?


Oh, well, at least I've gotten some of the frothers to out themselves.
personal comments like these belong in the Pit, not a debate forum.

[tnetennba]

I see a repeated trend toward historical revisionism in these threads where Republicans honestly believe the economy tanked AFTER Obama took office, and is therefor his fault. The ability of Republicans to ignore facts and delude themselves is phenomenal. This was RECENTLY. We all remember what happened.

[furt]

Most of the links above are pretty mild compared to the propaganda you folks swooned over when it was King Ronnie's coronation time--it's pretty funny to hear you denouncing it now as completely without precedent in American politics.You folks? I 'm not a republican; I was ten years old when Reagan was elected, and it made me sad because my mom voted for Carter and I liked her more than my dad. Eight years later I voted for Jesse Jackson and Michael Dukakis.

But for what it's worth, I do find Reagan hagiography embarrassing. And I found the Bush-lionizing that happened in 2001-2002 pathetic as well (see Andrew Sullivan for some great examples). In the highly unlikely event that a politician sharing my views were elected, I'd be appalled were he or she venerated in such a way. Hopefully so would the politician.

I find it sad anytime ostensibly free people genuflect towards politicians like the subjects of a monarchy. I find it pathetic when intelligent people ignore or excuse such obsequiousness because they agree with the politician.

[tnetennba]

I find it interesting when people complain that the molehills are mountains.

[Mr. Moto]

"You're a public servant. Go get me a glass of water."

-George Carlin

[XT]

I noticed this also and started a thread in GD about it to explore what was going on.

Why monikers, righties? (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=576606)

Basically, the people on the right who were seeking to label is as a non-issue or attribute some sort of false equivalence to actions of people on the left were unable to do so over the course of a 3 page discussion.

Name-calling, even when those names are falsely applied, seems to just be something people on the right embrace.

Man...I'd seriously not link to that thread as some sort of proof that your contentions were right. Yes, you did and continue to declare victory, and I'm sure you really believe that you were able to defeat all comers and emerge victorious...but, you know, many decaffeinated beverages today are just as tasty as the real thing...

-XT

[XT]

OK, so for examples of Obama-worship, we have:
1: A picture on the front of a magazine showing him in a flattering pose and lighting, with the most divine word on the whole cover being "hope".
2: A reporter pointing out that the office of the Presidency wields god-like power
3: A magazine which is making the implication that Obama can't handle all the challenges of the Presidency, because he'd need to be Shiva to do so.
4: A reporter who found him inspiring to an embarrassing degree, but who still didn't attach any religious imagery to him.
5: Kids who think that Obama will be capable of leadership.

Is that the best you can do?

So, what level of proof that there were some Democrats who were totally overboard about Obama (despite the claims of the OP that s/he knew of no actual examples) are you willing to acknowledge? The post seemed pretty comprehensible to me, covering a wide range of venues and people, and explaining why the Republicans have latched onto this as something they can attack Obama supporters on. While I don't believe this was an aspect of the majority of Obama supporters (I certainly never felt he was god(s) like), you would have to be willfully ignorant to have not seen a lot of folks (some on this board) who DID go completely batshit over the man during his campaign.

-XT

[pseudotriton ruber ruber]

But my point, XT, was that Obama-worship seemed WELL within the bounds of normal political discourse, and my later refinement of that point was that, of course, I understand (as should anyone) why African-Americans went a little overboard about seeing a black man win the Presidency, and why Chris Matthews who lacks a brain cell in his head expressed himself poorly in explaining his enthusiasm. But it just seems like normal enthusiasm to me, and you Pubbies will not let it go, even as you slather over Palin, Bachmann, Perry, Any Nutjob, just as you formerly went berserk over the magnificent brilliance that was Reagan. I'd think you would have come back to "Ok, you guys seem pleased that your guy won the election, now back to business..." but instead I'm still hearing sneers about "The One." It just seems odd to me.

[XT]

It wasn't just African-Americans, but the point is that any sort of foible like this has the potential for the other side to latch onto and use it against their opponents. Some of the enthusiasm was definitely not just 'normal'...it was completely overboard. And the Republicans have latched onto that as a weapon they can use against Obama and some of his base. It's been successful because it resonates, since most people know very well that some of Obama's supporters became overly enthusiastic during his campaign, and some in the media did the same.


BTW, for the record, I never went 'berserk' over 'the magnificent brillance that was Reagan', but it's interesting that you would bring this up, since it's exactly what's going on here, but in reverse. Obviously some people DID go overboard about Reagan, both during and after his presidency, and the left has latched onto that as a potential attack point, one that they can use to grind away at his image by showing that people went silly over him. Of course, I don't recall any of the media portraying Reagan in god(s) like settings or with divine imagery, but basically it's the same exact tactic.

ETA: And you keep saying 'you guys'...FTR, I voted for Obama and plan on voting for him again in the re-election.

-XT

[furt]

But my point, XT, was that Obama-worship seemed WELL within the bounds of normal political discourse,So you're totally comfortable with uniformed youths saluting a presidential candidate while repeating his slogan? We'll keep that in mind.

But it just seems like normal enthusiasm to me, and you Pubbies will not let it go, even as you slather over Palin, Bachmann, Perry, Any Nutjob, just as you formerly went berserk over the magnificent brilliance that was Reagan. I'd think you would have come back to "Ok, you guys seem pleased that your guy won the election, now back to business..." but instead I'm still hearing sneers about "The One." :rolleyes: You know that Xtisme isn't a Republican either, right?

[pseudotriton ruber ruber]

It's been successful because it resonates, since most people know very well that some of Obama's supporters became overly enthusiastic during his campaign, and some in the media did the same.


If it resonated, I would be feeling mildly guilty about the over-enthusiasm I saw all around me in 2008, instead of wasting people's time reading this thread. It doesn't resonate, hence this thread. Mention "the one" in mainstream Democratic circles and you get a lot of furrowed brows and "The what?" "The who?" --if it really resonated except among partisans and professional Obama-haters, these Dems would be exchanging guilty looks and acknowledging "yeah we were a little exuberant there," and they're not.

[XT]

If it resonated, I would be feeling mildly guilty about the over-enthusiasm I saw all around me in 2008, instead of wasting people's time reading this thread.

If it didn't resonate then you (and others) wouldn't bother with starting threads on the subject, since you and they would just dismiss it out of hand, with perhaps a pit thread on stupid Republican tricks or something of the sort. It's pretty evident that it DOES resonate, and that on some level you and others see that it does.

It doesn't resonate, hence this thread.

Why bother then? If someone said that Obama was a cross dressing hunched back with Anabaptist leanings and red hair you wouldn't bother starting a thread to debate the subject...you would just dismiss it. And even if YOU thought it was worth a debate, most others wouldn't. Yet, this theme has been discussed and debated and even Pitted several times, and is not confined to just this message board. You can deny that this resonates all you like, but the fact it is being discussed is a strong indication to me that there is some level of denial going on here.

Understand...just because it resonates doesn't mean it's true that all Obama supporters are in lock step about it. The best attacks have a kernel of truth behind them...that's why they are so successful and spread beyond just the base, as this one has.

Mention "the one" in mainstream Democratic circles and you get a lot of furrowed brows and "The what?" "The who?" --if it really resonated except among partisans and professional Obama-haters, these Dems would be exchanging guilty looks and acknowledging "yeah we were a little exuberant there," and they're not.

I'm sorry, but mention the messiah-esque qualities some over the top enthusiasts ascribe to Obama and most people are going to nod their heads as they recall specific instances...unless they are either in active denial or have been living under a rock with those guys from the Geiko commercial. They might not know this specific instance, but I'm guessing if you said 'The One' in the context of Obama they would understand the underlying subtext of what was being discussed, whether they agreed about it or not.

-XT

[pseudotriton ruber ruber]

If someone said that Obama was a cross dressing hunched back with Anabaptist leanings and red hair you wouldn't bother starting a thread to debate the subject...you would just dismiss it.

Yes, I would, but this thread is prompted by the recurrence of it by a lot of 'someone's three years after the election, sneering and frothing exactly as if it were an acknowledged truth. I can't figure out why it doesn't seem a boring, so-what topic that's been dead for three years now. I mean, I'm not asking why did so many tighty-righties pull out that silly "The One" stuff in the 2008--I'm curious why your right-wingers are still doing it right now. Even if it was accurate then, which I doubt, it certainly isn't accurate today, so why do they keep returning to it, like a dog to its vomit?

[pseudotriton ruber ruber]

Proverbs 26:11, btw.

[XT]

Yes, I would, but this thread is prompted by the recurrence of it by a lot of 'someone's three years after the election, sneering and frothing exactly as if it were an acknowledged truth. I can't figure out why it doesn't seem a boring, so-what topic that's been dead for three years now. I mean, I'm not asking why did so many tighty-righties pull out that silly "The One" stuff in the 2008--I'm curious why your right-wingers are still doing it right now. Even if it was accurate then, which I doubt, it certainly isn't accurate today, so why do they keep returning to it, like a dog to its vomit?

:p Well, they aren't MY right wingers (you will note that I've never used that terminology when discussing Obama), but I'd say that it's the same reason why lefties clung to 'Bush stole the election!' (in 2000 of course) until...well, even today, though it's finally starting to fade out. Why did they keep on with that? Well, because it resonated beyond their base and it worked for them (to an extent...it worked best with their own base, and most others got tired of the rant after a fairly short time, but you could always count on some of the fervent to bring it up in just about any thread about Bush).

My advice to you is get used to it...it's going to be a major theme of the Pubs in the coming election, so you are going to hear more and more about it as they hammer on this and other themes. If you think it has no traction or doesn't resonate then you should be thrilled, since that means they are wasting their time.

-XT

[XT]

Proverbs 26:11, btw.

Ah...I thought it was from Leviticracks and the sins of gluttony...

-XT

[Marley23]

Of course, I don't recall any of the media portraying Reagan in god(s) like settings or with divine imagery
That's alright - furt's examples don't do that either. :D The Newsweek example was saying we expect presidents to be godlike and that Obama can't do it all. The comment about the Cairo speech was just bizarre.

[pseudotriton ruber ruber]

Wait, are you equating the factuality of the Bush-Gore election being so tainted that the Supreme Court had to decide it (in 5-4 vote along party lines) with your perception that more Obama supporters expressed more enthusiasm than you think was seemly? And concluding, ah, they all do it?

[XT]

That's alright - furt's examples don't do that either. :D The Newsweek example was saying we expect presidents to be godlike and that Obama can't do it all. The comment about the Cairo speech was just bizarre.

That might have been what the article said, but the imagery would certainly be familiar to a lot of folks on a certain sub-continent. And what about the Rolling Stone cover?

I think his examples were a good mix of where this meme is coming from. They were hardly exhaustive.

-XT

[XT]

Wait, are you equating the factuality of the Bush-Gore election being so tainted that the Supreme Court had to decide it (in 5-4 vote along party lines) with your perception that more Obama supporters expressed more enthusiasm than you think was seemly? And concluding, ah, they all do it?

No, I'm pointing out a counter example that the left ran with even in Bush's second term, and continued to harp on long past the point that most people were interested in the subject. Much as you claim that this meme you decided to start a debate thread on (which doesn't have any traction but you felt compelled to discuss) is being harped on long past the point (you claim) that most people think it's more than dogs vomit. Or something.

-XT

[pseudotriton ruber ruber]

Just my humble opinion, of course, but I think the suggestion that Bush took an office to which he was only arguably entitled will appear in history books as long as history books are written while this stuff about Obama supporters expressing unseemly enthusiasm is going to be very small potatoes in the long run. One is a legitmate issue, deserving of serious attention, only partly for electoral reasons, and other is just silly stuff, spouted by jealous partisans that has no significance whatsoever. I'm sure YM does V.

[Chronos]

Quoth xtisme:So, what level of proof that there were some Democrats who were totally overboard about Obama (despite the claims of the OP that s/he knew of no actual examples) are you willing to acknowledge?What? I don't deny that there were some Democrats who were totally overboard about Obama (though not all of those links support even that). I didn't know that anyone denied that. But there's a difference between overly enthusiastic about someone and deifying them or proclaiming them to be the Messiah. When you can find folks saying that Obama is God's annointed sent to cleanse the country of evil, or praying to an idol of him, then that'll be relevant to this thread.

[pseudotriton ruber ruber]

That's the kernal of my puzzlement, Chronos: they seem to be claiming that Democrats were enthusiastic about their candidate, and that a very small number of them were extremely enthusiastic.
Typical Dem response is: Yeah? Uh-huh, that's correct, what's your point?

Pubbie: You LERVE him, don't you?

Dem: Uh, no, we support him for elective office, just as you do your candidates.

Pub: No, you LERRRRRRVE him!!

It just seems silly and childish, but yet it doesn't fade.

[Marley23]

That might have been what the article said, but the imagery would certainly be familiar to a lot of folks on a certain sub-continent.
The Shiva imagery is deliberate. The point isn't that Obama is a god, it's that he isn't, and that he would have to be one to do all the things a modern president is expected to do. It's not a good example of irrational enthusiasm for Obama.

And what about the Rolling Stone cover?
Yeah, I think it's fair to say that's divine imagery. I said upthread that some Democrats had wildly unrealistic expectations for Obama and I probably understated that a little. Given how much RS hated Bush, you'd expect them to do that for Obama.

[mlees]

If it resonated, I would be feeling mildly guilty about the over-enthusiasm I saw all around me in 2008, instead of wasting people's time reading this thread. It doesn't resonate, hence this thread. Mention "the one" in mainstream Democratic circles and you get a lot of furrowed brows and "The what?" "The who?" --if it really resonated except among partisans and professional Obama-haters, these Dems would be exchanging guilty looks and acknowledging "yeah we were a little exuberant there," and they're not.

In Hilary's race during the primaries, even she got snippy, and said "The skies will open, the light will come down, celestial choirs will be singing and everyone will know we should do the right thing and the world will be perfect."

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/02/25/clinton-gets-sarcastic-mocks-obama/

Hillary's staffers (and probably Sen. Clinton herself) would not have had furrowed brows.

[Marley23]

Hillary's staffers (and probably Sen. Clinton herself) would not have had furrowed brows.
Democrats wouldn't furrow their brows because they know who Republicans mean when they say "The One" (capitalized). It's not that hard to work out in context.

[mlees]

Democrats wouldn't furrow their brows because they know who Republicans mean when they say "The One" (capitalized). It's not that hard to work out in context.

Come on. P.R.R. stated that this meme was completely unknown outside of pubbie crybaby circles. That's just not the case.

Did McCain somehow get Hillary to make that snarky comment?

[pseudotriton ruber ruber]

she got snippy.

At the time she did, I would classify her among the partisans and professional Obama-haters.

[Marley23]

Come on. P.R.R. stated that this meme was completely unknown outside of pubbie crybaby circles. That's just not the case.
I agree. Democrats know what it means because Republicans have been saying it for years. The Clinton comment was about Obama being naive, not about his supporters being over-enthusiastic.

[mlees]

I agree. Democrats know what it means because Republicans have been saying it for years. The Clinton comment was about Obama being naive, not about his supporters being over-enthusiastic.

Hmmm. It reads both ways to me, now that you mention it! :D She made a double entendre.

[mlees]

At the time she did, I would classify her among the partisans and professional Obama-haters.

I would like to point out that the meme of the Obama worshiper wouldn't have as much "punch" to it now, because a lot of the enthusiasm of mid 2008 has faded away.

I suspect only the most partisan political commentator (Hannity/Limbaugh) would assert that it still exists in significant numbers.

[pseudotriton ruber ruber]

Well, that's kind of what I'm what I'm saying. The fanatics are all "You're cuh-razy in LERVE with this demi-God, ain;t you?", the moderates/independents are all "Eh, it's just what pols do, attract their supporters," and the Dems/libs are all "WTF?" TYhe puzzling part why the fanatics try to use it as an arguing point against the libs. It seems pointless to tease people about things they don't even believe. I can see arguing "You just LOVE taxing people, dontcha?" because at least that's a point that libs are wiling to argue and to acknowledge has some truth to it. "You think just EVERYBODY should get free health care, dontcha?" is another winner. I don't see the point of arguing about something where your opponent is just going to scratch his head and wonder if you took too much oxycontin this morning.

[mlees]

Well, that's kind of what I'm what I'm saying. The fanatics are all "You're cuh-razy in LERVE with this demi-God, ain;t you?", the moderates/independents are all "Eh, it's just what pols do, attract their supporters," and the Dems/libs are all "WTF?" TYhe puzzling part why the fanatics try to use it as an arguing point against the libs. It seems pointless to tease people about things they don't even believe. I can see arguing "You just LOVE taxing people, dontcha?" because at least that's a point that libs are wiling to argue and to acknowledge has some truth to it. "You think just EVERYBODY should get free health care, dontcha?" is another winner. I don't see the point of arguing about something where your opponent is just going to scratch his head and wonder if you took too much oxycontin this morning.

Meh. There's still fanatics about the birth certificate issue. Don't let 'em get under your skin. (It only encourages them. :) )

[Bricker]

That's the kernal of my puzzlement, Chronos: they seem to be claiming that Democrats were enthusiastic about their candidate, and that a very small number of them were extremely enthusiastic.
Typical Dem response is: Yeah? Uh-huh, that's correct, what's your point?

Pubbie: You LERVE him, don't you?

Dem: Uh, no, we support him for elective office, just as you do your candidates.

Pub: No, you LERRRRRRVE him!!

It just seems silly and childish, but yet it doesn't fade.

Who here changed their location to "Obamacountry" or some variant thereof?

And who here changed their location to "Bush country" or some variant thereof in 2000 or 2004?

[Mr. Moto]

For that matter, why didn't anyone get it into their heads to start a Kerry or Gore location trend? Why did the Obama one catch on, when we all know a Kerry one wouldn't?

Let's be honest here.

[Marley23]

For that matter, why didn't anyone get it into their heads to start a Kerry or Gore location trend? Why did the Obama one catch on, when we all know a Kerry one wouldn't?
I think you just proved that there was more enthusiasm for Obama than for Kerry and Gore, and that there was more support for Obama online. Congrats- until now, only everyone knew that. ;)

[Mr. Moto]

Right. And some segment of that enthusiasm can be overenthusiasm. I have never claimed that this was terribly important, but it does crop up and can be a bit embarrassing when it does.

Like with the "I Pledge" video - not many people will defend this today. They will say it went too far. Because it did.

But that doesn't mean that it didn't happen, or that it wasn't part of a trend.

[XT]

I think you just proved that there was more enthusiasm for Obama than for Kerry and Gore, and that there was more support for Obama online.

It was more than just some additional enthusiasm in many cases, not just here but all over the internet. And some people went completely nuts over Obama and certainly were setting expectations very similarly to the second coming of Jesus. That these folks weren't in the majority of folks who supported Obama has nothing to do with the core of where this meme is coming from. It's not something made up out of whole clothe by the evil Republican propaganda machine, as the OP was saying...there is a kernel of truth, even if it's exaggerated (this IS political attack after all) and blown out of proportion. Much like ALL political attacks, this one works (such as it does) because people can relate...we all remember the folks who were squeeeee-ing with pleasure and wriggling with delight over Obama both in the primaries and in the general election. Hell, I was pretty enthusiastic about the man, and I don't generally squeee or wriggle all that much over politicians.

The OP is pretty plainly stating that s/he seemingly has no idea where this meme comes from and knows of no Dems who acted like this...this despite the fact that OP's joing date was in 2002. I find that incredibly difficult to believe, both because of the numerous examples of near worship from 'dopers during the run up period as well as numerous examples in blogs, left wing web sites and even MSM publications such as the Rolling Stone example given earlier.

-XT

[XT]

The Shiva imagery is deliberate. The point isn't that Obama is a god, it's that he isn't, and that he would have to be one to do all the things a modern president is expected to do. It's not a good example of irrational enthusiasm for Obama.

I agree that this was probably the point, but understand that I also know a bit about Shiva. If you didn't and were just looking at the cover you wouldn't have the same analysis of what was being shown you there. I do agree that it probably wasn't a good example of irrational enthusiasm about Obama, however.

Yeah, I think it's fair to say that's divine imagery. I said upthread that some Democrats had wildly unrealistic expectations for Obama and I probably understated that a little. Given how much RS hated Bush, you'd expect them to do that for Obama.

Sure...and there was certainly a lot of reasons to pin a lot on Obama. The point is that some folks went overboard, and now the Republicans are using that as ammunition to attack Obama and his supporters over it. Pretty standard tactics, and ones that have been used since the founding of the nation. What's annoying here is that suddenly this is some sort of new tactic from the evil Republicans, based on threads like this one and others. It's all about oxes and gores, or gores and oxes, as I attempted to explain in Bo's fine thread he proudly linked too earlier. It's annoying to the OP because this time it's his guy who is getting oxed by the gore, but it was hardly noticeable when the shoe was on the other horse.

-XT

[RTFirefly]

I'm sorry, but mention the messiah-esque qualities some over the top enthusiasts ascribe to Obama and most people are going to nod their heads as they recall specific instances...unless they are either in active denial or have been living under a rock with those guys from the Geiko commercial. They might not know this specific instance, but I'm guessing if you said 'The One' in the context of Obama they would understand the underlying subtext of what was being discussed, whether they agreed about it or not. I hardly think I was living under a rock in 2008 and 2009, but sorry, I'd have been more likely to connect it with Justin Bieber than Barack Obama, if not for the harpings of the wingnuts.

As Chronos already suggested, there's a big difference between giddy infatuation (which I'll agree wasn't in short supply) and Messiah-worship.

Obviously some people DID go overboard about Reagan, both during and after his presidency, and the left has latched onto that as a potential attack point, one that they can use to grind away at his image by showing that people went silly over him. Of course, I don't recall any of the media portraying Reagan in god(s) like settings or with divine imagery, but basically it's the same exact tactic.Hey, it was the RNC that quite recently (http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2009/10/rnc-web-site-pays-tribute-to-ronaldus-magnus.php) referred to Reagan as "Ronaldus Magnus." Ditto the Freepers at Free Republic (http://www.freerepublic.com/~ronaldusmagnus/). Or Rush Limbaugh (http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/menu/ronald.guest.html) (""The World Heard the Truth from God.") Or the American Conservative Daily (http://www.americanconservativedaily.com/2011/02/the-wisdom-and-wit-of-ronaldus-magnus/).

[pseudotriton ruber ruber]

No, it's annoying to me because it's tired and old and SOP, and righties who do it in 2011 think they're making some great big valid arguing point, when all they get is liberal rolleyes.

[pseudotriton ruber ruber]

the numerous examples of near worship from 'dopers during the run up period

Oh, yeah. Cite?

[Mr. Moto]

Oh, yeah. Cite?

Way (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=607540)too (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=505896)easy. (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=489424)

[furt]

When you can find folks saying that Obama is God's annointed sent to cleanse the country of evil, or praying to an idol of him, then that'll be relevant to this thread.
Barack Obama isn't really one of us. Not in the normal way, anyway. ... Many spiritually advanced people I know (not coweringly religious, mind you, but deeply spiritual) identify Obama as a Lightworker, that rare kind of attuned being who has the ability to lead us not merely to new foreign policies or health care plans or whatnot, but who can actually help usher in a new way of being on the planet, of relating and connecting and engaging with this bizarre earthly experiment. These kinds of people actually help us evolve. They are philosophers and peacemakers of a very high order, and they speak not just to reason or emotion, but to the soul. (http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/g/a/2008/06/06/notes060608.DTL)
Nevertheless, his followers willing to wait for hours on end to hear him speak have been crowding out huge concert halls and sports arenas to get a glimpse of their new progressive avatar and drive long distances to obtain the Obama darshan or to simply be in his presence. One can just imagine what the peace and flower-power concerts in the 60's might have been like. Many even see in Obama a messiah-like figure, a great soul, and some affectionately call him Mahatma Obama. Clearly, people are hungry for a change and want an inspirational leader who can serve up some hearty 'chicken soup for the soul'. (http://www.opednews.com/articles/Obama-s-Satyagraha--Or--Di-by-Dinesh-Sharma-080626-187.html)
Lee predicted Obama would be elected in November.

"When that happens, it will change everything. ... You'll have to measure time by `Before Obama' and `After Obama,'" Lee said during the panel. "It's an exciting time to be alive now."
...
"Everything's going to be affected by this seismic change in the universe," he said. (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/07/11/spike-lee-obamas-election_n_112142.html)
Now, at least, I was on my feet as Senator Obama entered the room. Fate had blessed me in this moment, as I realized that the aisle that was keeping me from my seat was created for him and his secret service escort to make their way to the stage. Within seconds, he was a few feet from me. Cameras were flashing, everyone was cheering, and I knew this was my moment. I pushed my way up to the barricade as he shook hands with as many people as time would allow. I squeezed up front, but Obama was moving quickly and just passed me by. Then, in a moment of divine intervention, he saw me, clad in my red stop-sign of a dress, back-tracked ever so slightly in his procession, grabbed my hand, and gave that brilliant smile of his. I literally said out loud to the woman next to me who witnessed my good fate, "I’ll never wash this hand again." (http://fashion.elle.com/culture/agenda/2008/07/18/joining-the-oba/)

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_WkA8USJcfPw/SyVUaxwQ1fI/AAAAAAAAAgE/3ssRtMzWV1Y/s1600-h/obamachrist.jpg

Those are taken from http://obamamessiah.blogspot.com/

You may also wish to note that liberal commenters have noticed the same phenomenon; some blame themselves ("I was at an Obama rally in Las Vegas last month, hanging at the rope line afterward in the cold night desert air, just to see him up close, to make sure he was real." (http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-oe-stein8feb08,0,3418234.column)), and some blame Obama. ( "Barack Obama has a messiah complex and no one will convince me otherwise." (http://motherjones.com/transition/inter25.php?dest=http://motherjones.com/mojo/2008/02/barack-obamas-messiah-complex))

And Slate made "Obama Messiah Watch" into a recurring feature (http://www.slate.com/id/2184459/).

But, please, feel free to insist it never happened. I deny that my generation was responsible for hair bands, so I understand.

[Chronos]

First of all, that's examples of a doper, not dopers. The plural means more than one.

Second, anyone who thinks that saying someone has a nice smile is "worship" clearly isn't very good at the whole religion thing.

[furt]

First of all, that's examples of a doper, not dopers. The plural means more than one.Read the threads.

[pseudotriton ruber ruber]

Way (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=607540)too (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=505896)easy. (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=489424)

You kind of got put in your place in the 35th post here (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=505896). Those threads are mostly of dopers saying "I like the guy, but let's not go too crazy here, okay" and you're citing them as 1000% over-the-top Obama worship. There are women in there, basically saying "I think he's cute" and other dopers saying "This is fun to have a president I can respect and admire for a change" but not much serious worship of Obama in the one thread I've read so far.

[JKellyMap]

Speaking for myself, the excitement felt upon Obama's election was less directed at him individually, and more directed at the population of the U.S. -- an emotional, congratulatory "way to go -- we/you guys WERE able to get past skin color and a funny name after all". Few of us had any illusions about him as a person (we knew he was smart, and inclusive, and in some ways a fresh start, so that was better than the alternative), although too many of us, it seems, still have illusions about what the president can and cannot do (the office doesn't weild as much power as some disappointed liberals think it does.)

(For a good explanation of why we should try to avoid hero-worship in general, see Leonard Mlodinow's book The Drunkard's Walk: How Randomness Rules Our Lives -- especially the part about how ordinary Bill Gates is, just that he was in the right place at the right time.)

[ElvisL1ves]

First of all, that's examples of a doper, not dopers. The plural means more than one.Some discussion of another (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=501405), complete with links. But he was only the most around the bend about it.

an emotional, congratulatory "way to go -- we/you guys WERE able to get past skin color and a funny name after all".Yes, we did get quite a few comments in 2008 about how we could show each other and the world that we're finally over race in our daily and political lives by voting for the black guy.

[RTFirefly]

Way (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=607540)too (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=505896)easy. (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=489424)As Chronos already suggested, there's a big difference between giddy infatuation (which I'll agree wasn't in short supply) and Messiah-worship.

[RTFirefly]

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_WkA8USJcfPw/SyVUaxwQ1fI/AAAAAAAAAgE/3ssRtMzWV1Y/s1600-h/obamachrist.jpg

Those are taken from http://obamamessiah.blogspot.com/Your examples are at least on point, because they're crossing the line between infatuation and worship. But still, what do you have? From a blog devoted to collecting such stories, you're able to cull:

One celeb most people have actually heard of (Spike Lee);

One local, non-syndicated columnist;

One writer at Elle magazine; and

some freelancer I've never heard of.

But, please, feel free to insist it never happened. I deny that my generation was responsible for hair bands, so I understand.Yes, there were people who got into Obama-worship. Nobody here is quarreling with that. But this is still very much down in the white noise, rather than something that was hard to miss if you didn't spend 2008 in a cave.

[Merijeek]

Yes, there were people who got into Obama-worship. Nobody here is quarreling with that. But this is still very much down in the white noise, rather than something that was hard to miss if you didn't spend 2008 in a cave.

Remember that one summer camp where the kids were praying to a cardboard cutout of him? It sure was creepy.

-Joe

[furt]

Yes, there were people who got into Obama-worship. Nobody here is quarreling with that. Um, you may want to read the thread. Chronos and PRR said pretty much exactly that. Note the quote. Nice try at moving those goalposts, though.

But this is still very much down in the white noise, rather than something that was hard to miss if you didn't spend 2008 in a cave.
Uh-huh. And liberal reporters writers commenting on what they see as a widespread phenomenon, and Slate -- that right-wing bastion -- running a recurring feature mocking the ridiculous rhetoric people attached to him.

Anyone unaware of it either wasn't paying attention, is forgetful, or is dishonest.



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

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1207/7281.html

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/janetdaley/5633493/Obama_the_Messiah_is_going_to_produce_profound_disillusion/

http://open.salon.com/blog/garybaumgarten/2009/04/27/messianic_obama_on_display

[The Tooth]

Remember that one summer camp where the kids were praying to a cardboard cutout of him? It sure was creepy.

-Joe


No no, they were praying for Bush, not to him. Can't imagine why.

[XT]

I pray for bush all the time, and usually my wife obliges, but sometimes...

Oh...that's not what you mean. :smack: Never mind...

-XT

[Zoe]

I haven't seen any evidence of anyone who actually worshiped President Obama as a divine being. I see people believing that he might be a divinely inspired great teacher or philosopher or spiritual leader. I see people claiming that they somehow "know" that Obama has a Messiah complex. I think people who claim to read other people's minds are not to be taken very seriously.
The "easy" link that Mr. Moto provided as an example of worship of Obama sounded like a giddy crush and nothing more. The person who wrote the post described the feelings as a crush, not as the worship of a god.

If I have missed a link that actually shows organized or wide spread worship of Obama and that worship still continues, please direct me to the post I missed.

I see even the people that I generally agree with here saying that a lot of people got "out of bounds." If their actions got weird, then there may be something to that. But I'm not sure that any of us are in a position to judge someone else's feelings about Obama or Reagan as being a little over the top. Facts and actions can be right or wrong. Feelings just are.

Jas09: The large crowd of swooning supporters was a big deal, and it's pretty natural to attack that. I don't see anything odd about it at all. I'm not saying it's a valid attack, just a natural one.

Look at what you are saying. It can be natural and ordinary to make an invalid attack? What is wrong with this picture, Jas? I say it is not natural to make dishonest attacks! There is too much of that and it is promoted more and more as being an okay tactic. I don't care which party does it! There is nothing wrong with large, adoring crowds when you are running for President!!!

furt: Eight years later I voted for Jesse Jackson and Michael Dukakis.

Were you able to split your vote and not vote for the entire Democratic ticket?


Jas09: And on preview, Marley, I actually kinda liked that part of the speech too (and know a number of non-partisans that really liked it), but it is pretty easy to twist into a "Obama thinks he can stop the seas from rising" moment.

Why would any honest person want to twist it? It's obviously talking about slowing global warming. Do Republicans just look for ways to twist and deceive? Why? Can't they score any points without doing that?

[Recovering Republican]

It's the assumption that liberals are like conservatives and are fiercely dogmatic and tribal, supporting Obama because he's on their side of the fence regardless of his actual policies or actions. Obama doesn't get a fraction of the hero worship the rabid Right devote to Ronald Reagan, yet for some reason it's the Left who have drunk the Messiah Kool-Aid.

Also on topic: I want to solicit a little more love for this post of mine (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=14038281&postcount=518).


Major difference. Reagan was a successful president in nearly every since of the word.

Obama has pretty much failed at everything he's done.

But you guys go ape-shit when there is the slightest criticism of the guy.

[Typo Knig]

Major difference. Reagan was a successful president in nearly every since of the word.

Obama has pretty much failed at everything he's done.

But you guys go ape-shit when there is the slightest criticism of the guy.

Reagan successfully doubled the federal debt in his terms, sent the deficit through the roof, had more cabinet officials indicted than any POTUS, proved in Lebsnon that large suicide bombs work, sold arms illegally, paid ransom to hostage-takers, and violated the Constitution. He was nearly successful starting a thermonuclear war.

But since he did it all with a smile and a well-modulated voice, I guess all is forgiven. Sure, the economy picked up - he borrowed a most of a trilloon dollars and threw a party. All we had left afterwards was a hsngover of debt.

We in the reality-based community do not have a problem criticizing Obama, or hearing criticism we don't agree with. Yes, the deficit is big - but it was also big under GWB, GHWB, and Reagan but we didn't get anything that lasted out of those deficits. Also, where were the complaints from the right then? Are deficits only OK under Republican presidents?

I for one object to people who make fantastic (as in based in fantasy) criticisms against Obama such: Kenyan, crypto-Muslim, "terrorist fist bump"

[Typo Knig]

... and we'll make merciless fun of the Tea Partiers and Birthers as the idiots they are. While we're going "neener-neener" they are crashing the economy again, which shows you how effective the whole thing is.

[tnetennba]

Major difference. Reagan was a successful president in nearly every since of the word.

Obama has pretty much failed at everything he's done.

But you guys go ape-shit when there is the slightest criticism of the guy.

Such black and white thinking, and you don't even have the colors right.

[Recovering Republican]

Such black and white thinking, and you don't even have the colors right.

Nobody is going to be naming an aircraft carrier after Obama, that's for certain

A garbage scow, maybe.

How successful was Reagan? Even "The One" needs to try to praise and emulate him.

I garuntee you, after Obama is voted out after his one term, Democrats are going to stick him in a closet like the crazy old Uncle they never want to hear from.

Kind of like they do with Jimmy Carter now, come to think of it.

[Recovering Republican]

Reagan successfully doubled the federal debt in his terms, sent the deficit through the roof, had more cabinet officials indicted than any POTUS, proved in Lebsnon that large suicide bombs work, sold arms illegally, paid ransom to hostage-takers, and violated the Constitution. He was nearly successful starting a thermonuclear war.

Actually, I thought Japanese Kamikazes proved that suicide bombing works. You act like the terrorists just invented the idea. The difference was that we FLATTENED Japan for that kind of bullshit. We have yet to flatten the offending parts of the middle east, and that's the problem. They're being allowed to get away with it, and that started with your boy, Jimmy Carter, letting Iran get away with taking hostages.

But since he did it all with a smile and a well-modulated voice, I guess all is forgiven. Sure, the economy picked up - he borrowed a most of a trilloon dollars and threw a party. All we had left afterwards was a hsngover of debt.... Yes, the deficit is big - but it was also big under GWB, GHWB, and Reagan but we didn't get anything that lasted out of those deficits. Also, where were the complaints from the right then? Are deficits only OK under Republican presidents?


Again, he had Democratic Congresses that really had more say in spending than he did. But the overall problem with debt is that borrowing is easier than taxing or cutting spending.

The difference now is, we can't afford to borrow any more. IN the case of Reagan, we had the potential to grow our way out of the debt. Now we don't. There simply isn't anything more to tax and we have little left to borrow against. We have to do what every American family has had to do- cut spending.

We in the reality-based community do not have a problem criticizing Obama, or hearing criticism we don't agree with.
I for one object to people who make fantastic (as in based in fantasy) criticisms against Obama such: Kenyan, crypto-Muslim, "terrorist fist bump"

You all screamed like scalded cats when I suggested that he can't get re-elected with a 9.2% unemployment rate. I've never made comments like the ones you describe, and frankly, I've been attacked mercilessly... so I don't buy it.

[Typo Knig]

Actually, I thought Japanese Kamikazes proved that suicide bombing works. You act like the terrorists just invented the idea. The difference was that we FLATTENED Japan for that kind of bullshit. We have yet to flatten the offending parts of the middle east, and that's the problem. They're being allowed to get away with it, and that started with your boy, Jimmy Carter, letting Iran get away with taking hostages.



Again, he had Democratic Congresses that really had more say in spending than he did. But the overall problem with debt is that borrowing is easier than taxing or cutting spending.

The difference now is, we can't afford to borrow any more. IN the case of Reagan, we had the potential to grow our way out of the debt. Now we don't. There simply isn't anything more to tax and we have little left to borrow against. We have to do what every American family has had to do- cut spending.



You all screamed like scalded cats when I suggested that he can't get re-elected with a 9.2% unemployment rate. I've never made comments like the ones you describe, and frankly, I've been attacked mercilessly... so I don't buy it.

Several posters on this very board have said thatvif unemployment is high enough a doorstop could win the 2012 election over Obama. I agree. 9.2% is close to that line if not over it. If any one screamed at all, it was not about that point. I would gently suggest any screaming was about other points of your argument or presentation.

[tnetennba]

To be fair, when you have your ears covered and are incessantly chanting "nahnahnahnahnah" it's hard to tell the meows from the caterwauls.

[Typo Knig]

Again, he had Democratic Congresses that really had more say in spending than he did. But the overall problem with debt is that borrowing is easier than taxing or cutting spending.

The difference now is, we can't afford to borrow any more. IN the case of Reagan, we had the potential to grow our way out of the debt. Now we don't. There simply isn't anything more to tax and we have little left to borrow against. We have to do what every American family has had to do- cut spending.

Funny how nothing bad was ever Ronnie's fault. He said he'd cut the deficit, but never submitted a balanced budget or worked with Congress to produce one. I don't recall Ronnie vetoing a budget. Even the ones that contained none of the cuts he campaigned on. Even the ones that contained -GASP - tax increases. The Department of Education still exists, as does the Departnent of Energy. Instead of doing the hard work that was his job, instead of reducing the eeee-vul deficit that he campaigned against, Ronnie compromised with Congress: he got his tax cuts and defense spending frenzy, they got minimal social program cuts and some increases for other programs, and the deficit skyrocketed - total US government debt doubled in the 8 Reagan years. GHWB continued those policies, and he doubled the total USG debt in another 4 years. Where were the deficit hawks then? Nowhere - the hypocrites.

It took Bill Cinton's combination of tax increases, spending cuts, and a huge economic boom/bubble to get the annual deficits turned into surplusses. He did the hard work. He showed how to grow out of a deficit that supposedly could not be grown out of. Then GWB came along and wiped out all that progress in months.

I can think of one exception on the R team. Sen. Barry Goldwater (R-Az) voted against an an Army helicopter program. A journalist asked why, since it was being built in his state. Goldwater replied "I don't care if they're building it in my living room - it costs too damn much!"

There wasn't much talk like that then, and there's none these days. Democrats are ready to aband Obama for even suggesting that Social Security and Medicare benefits might be reduced (more accuarately have smaller projected growth) as part of an overall debt reduction package.

So much for being "The One" who is supported no matter what.

[ElvisL1ves]

He said he'd cut the deficit, but never submitted a balanced budget or worked with Congress to produce one.I always enjoyed the way he'd annually submit a budget that was even further out of balance than his previous one, and in the same breath ask for a balanced budget amendment. He was like a serial killer who sent a note to the police saying "Stop me before I kill again!".

Of course, he'd be way too liberal for today's GOP (http://www.dailykos.com/story/2011/07/21/997013/-Ronald-Reagan-officially-too-liberal-for-modern-GOP).

[Recovering Republican]

[quote]It took Bill Cinton's combination of tax increases, spending cuts, and a huge economic boom/bubble to get the annual deficits turned into surplusses. He did the hard work. He showed how to grow out of a deficit that supposedly could not be grown out of. Then GWB came along and wiped out all that progress in months.


Wow, if you are this delusional, I'm not even sure why you bother to post.

First, Clinton's tax increases hurt the economy. The economy was in growth mode for most of 1992, but we dipped into negative growth in late 1994 and everyone concluded we were going into another recession. This is why they voted the bums out in the midterms.

It was only THEN that we finally got serious about spending cuts. They also cut capital gains taxes, which stimulated the economy. (Everyone forgets about that. )

Yeah, Bush had to cut taxes to stimulate an economy that had run out of gas (thanks to Clinton and Janet Reno suing MicroSoftand busting the tech bubble) and of course, we had a war because Slick Willy was too busy getting blow jobs rather than take care of that Bin Laden thing...

Clinton's lasting economy killer, though, were all those free trade deals he signed.

[Recovering Republican]

The Republican party has adopted a tactic over the last ten years or so to attempt to make opponents' greatest strengths their greatest weaknesses. For example, John Kerry was indeed a decorated sailor, but that was turned against him with the whole Swiftboating thing.

More or less the same thing with Obama. He ran a very strong campaign and had very high popularity ratings with liberals and moderates, and even quite a few conservatives admired the guy despite disagreements -- his approval rating was what, closing in on like 75 percent at the time of his inauguration. So, in order to attack the guy, Republican spinmeisters started saying, "Well SURE everyone likes the guy -- everyone is a sucker!! U R all teh stupid!! Obama and seven out of ten Americans, sittin' in a tree..."

I don't think there's that much more significance to it than that.

YOu know, you might be on to something there. What we are doing is cutting through the bullshit.

Kerry's a good example. Tried to repaint himself as this big bad war hero.... Oh, wait, there he is throwing his medals at Congress. Well, someone's medals, anyway. He displayed his in his office later. And there's another picture of him with commie traitor Jane Fonda. And there's his 20 year record of trying to cut off the military at the knees at every oppurtunity. Oh, gee, the whole "War Hero" thing doesn't look so good now, does it?

Obama, same deal, except the bullshit was a lot thicker to cut through.

Seriously, he was the least experienced person to hold the presidency, ever. Four years in the Senate. That's it. When he bothered to show up. But, hmmm...mmmmm, he makes us feel good, doesn't he. We can atone for all that guilt.

So when he fails to make the seas recede and the earth heal (like he promised he would) that 7 out of 10 that were willing to give the guy a chance (and I'll admit, I was, early on) now realize he's full of shit and it's down to 4 in 10.

But if you point out he's made the economy a lot worse, you're racist.

If you point out he hasn't kept many of his promises, you're racist.

When you point out he's been kind of ineffective, you're racist.

When we vote him out in a landslide in 2012, we'll all be racists.

[Chronos]

Kerry's a good example. Tried to repaint himself as this big bad war hero.... Oh, wait, there he is throwing his medals at Congress.Yeah, there's no way a genuine war hero would have any medals!

[Typo Knig]

Wow, if you are this delusional, I'm not even sure why you bother to post.

First, Clinton's tax increases hurt the economy. The economy was in growth mode for most of 1992,

I'll relegate the "delusional" comment to the rubber/glue convention.

Were you an adult in 1992? The economy was in the crapper the whole year. GHWB's proposed solution was for everyone to buy socks as Christmas presents. Wall Street did not begin stabilizing until after Clinton's first budget was passed in the winter of 1993. The budget with the tax increases. The budget that started closing the annual deficit. The budget that the R team said would cause disaster. But things got better after it passed.

but we dipped into negative growth in late 1994 and everyone concluded we were going into another recession. This is why they voted the bums out in the midterms.

It was only THEN that we finally got serious about spending cuts. They also cut capital gains taxes, which stimulated the economy. (Everyone forgets about that. )

Had you been around in '94 you might remember Clinton's failed attempt to reform the health insurance system. This caused much animus, and gave the Rs a ton of propaganda which they used to full force in the '94 mid-terms. Clinton was seen as a loser - irrelevant. That weakened him politically more than the state of the economy in '94, which was much better than in '92 as I recall.

Clinton did bring some fiscal discipline to the budget, and did work to get some new revenues in the stream. But he was hugely, tremendously, ginormously lucky. The Internet came along in a big way. This made it technically feasible for the government to do more with less. Long lines of people filling out forms? Put the forms on a web site and people can fill 'em out 24x7 at home. Suddenly you don't need as many physical offices, and cuts are possible at the same level of service provided. There was the associated tech bubble which ran Wall Street up to insane levels.

The other thing that helped the economy, and Wall Street, was all that 401k money that came in as companies were hiring, and not creating traditional pension plans.

Clinton was also lucky that the bubble did not burst during his term - though it leaked a fair bit at times. The tech bubble was not sustainable, but nobody knew at the time quite when it would pop.

Your claim that the capital gains cut helped the economy does not hold water. If the tax cuts for the extremely wealthy have created jobs, please tell me where they are. I have a friend who's looking.

Yeah, Bush had to cut taxes to stimulate an economy that had run out of gas (thanks to Clinton and Janet Reno suing MicroSoftand busting the tech bubble) and of course, we had a war because Slick Willy was too busy getting blow jobs rather than take care of that Bin Laden thing...

Clinton's lasting economy killer, though, were all those free trade deals he signed.

Dubya cut taxes for everything - good economy, bad economy, too much cream in his coffee. He cut taxes, cut them again, cut them some more, then went on a spending spree, including two massive wars. Then he was shocked - SHOCKED! - that the budget deficit was going up. Luckily for the republic, the fine deficit hawks and the astroturf political groups funded by the Koch brothers moved in to set things on a better path during Dubya's term, while the deficits were smaller and more easily addressed.

Oh wait, they totally didn't!

The free trade deals - the ones the Republicans supported until they were against them - I'm not happy with them, but one argument I heard was that off-shoring was happening anyway, might as well collect some benefits from it. I'm not convinced, but there it is.

Your suggestion that the anti-trust suit against Microsoft in any way contributed to the tech bubble bursting is not supported by any evidence at all. But that takes us even further from the OP, which I recall was about Google's new "+1" feature.

Re: Osama bin Laden - who was the one who had him caught and killed? Who is the one guy who had the guts to send a team to what turned out to be the right place at the right time, with orders to kill, even with very limited intel as to whether UBL was there (as opposed to some random drug smuggler)? Who was that one guy again?

[Gyrate]

Actually, I thought Japanese Kamikazes proved that suicide bombing works. You act like the terrorists just invented the idea. The difference was that we FLATTENED Japan for that kind of bullshit.Did you just imply that we nuked Japan because they used kamikaze pilots?We have yet to flatten the offending parts of the middle east, and that's the problem. They're being allowed to get away with it, and that started with your boy, Jimmy Carter, letting Iran get away with taking hostages.Yeah, we should have flattened Tehran the way Reagan flattened Beirut, er, Grenada.

[Recovering Republican]

Did you just imply that we nuked Japan because they used kamikaze pilots?.

Oh, that I think that was a factor....

"President Truman, the Japanese are flying planes into our ships, and sending children into suicide charges... Do we do a painful, drawn out amphibious invasion or just bomb them with this awesome new weapon we developed?"

Or to put it this way, do you think we'd have ever used the A-bomb on Germany?

[whiny liberal mode] "Yes. We nuked Japan because they weren't white, and we're a bunch of evil racists!!!" [/whiny liberal mode]

Seriously, I heard liberals say that shit in College.


.
Yeah, we should have flattened Tehran the way Reagan flattened Beirut, er, Grenada.

Yup, we should have.

Oh, flattening Beruit would have been redundant, but I was all for it.

[Recovering Republican]

Typo King-

So Obama deserved credit for the hard work the Navy Seals did.

Clinton deserves credit for what Bill Gates and the digital revolution Did.

Democrats- taking credit for other people's hard work since 1824.

[Typo Knig]

Typo King-

So Obama deserved credit for the hard work the Navy Seals did.

Clinton deserves credit for what Bill Gates and the digital revolution Did.

Democrats- taking credit for other people's hard work since 1824.

Obama gave the orders to that SEAL team. Obama did so knowing full well they the mission might fail, and he would be blamed for that failure. He did it anyway. It worked. You would have blamed him for the failure. Be fair and credit him with the success.

[Chronos]

You would have blamed him for the failure. Be fair and credit him with the success. "Would have"? He blames him for the failure anyway.

[Leaper]

I've been taking a peek at various liberal/progressive blogs lately, and if you believe that they reflect the general tone of the modern Democrat base voter, then the whole "The One" thing is even LESS true than it was in the beginning. I mean, damn. If they really ARE "the base," then Obama may be in some trouble.

[ElvisL1ves]

"Would have"? He blames him for the failure anyway.Even though it was a success. ;)

His "recovery" is still in the early stages; be patient with him.

[Chronos]

I've been taking a peek at various liberal/progressive blogs lately, and if you believe that they reflect the general tone of the modern Democrat base voter, then the whole "The One" thing is even LESS true than it was in the beginning. I mean, damn. If they really ARE "the base," then Obama may be in some trouble. To be fair, I'm pretty sure a lot of that is due to right-wing operatives. Post on liberal sites, claim to be a liberal, and say that Obama is so terrible at advancing the liberal agenda that we should just vote him out and hope for a real liberal next time.

[fumster]

Typo King-

So Obama deserved credit for the hard work the Navy Seals did.

Clinton deserves credit for what Bill Gates and the digital revolution Did.

Democrats- taking credit for other people's hard work since 1824.One of these things is not like the other. The depths to which conservatives sink to support their cult-like beliefs is almost breathtaking.

[fumster]

Yeah, there's no way a genuine war hero would have any medals!To be fair, if GW Bush, Reagan, or Nixon had had any medals they would not have thrown them. If they had served in combat they all would have been heroes; they'd have been a ton more brave than those liberals. It's really just bad luck they never got the chance. W was so upset about missing combat that he developed a drinking problem, but then again he did stop the Mexicans from invading while he served in the Air National Guard.

[CaptMurdock]

Typo King-

So Obama deserved credit for the hard work the Navy Seals did.


So you're saying Obama deserves no credit for the successful takedown of Osama bin Laden.

By this logic then, Jimmy Carter deserves no blame for the failure of Operation Eagle Claw. Right?

Can't have it both ways. (Watch him try, though...)

[Recovering Republican]

So you're saying Obama deserves no credit for the successful takedown of Osama bin Laden.

By this logic then, Jimmy Carter deserves no blame for the failure of Operation Eagle Claw. Right?

Can't have it both ways. (Watch him try, though...)

Sure you can.

Obama deserves no credit because the intelligence and planning work that went into that operation far preceded him. If left to him, we'd have never used the enhanced interrogation techniques that lead to bin Laden. Not to mention, the guy waited SIXTEEN HOURS before authorizing the mission. (He didn't want to miss that White House Correspondence Dinner).

Carter, on the other hand

1) Sold the Shah down the river.
2) Weakened our military with spending cuts.
3) Let the Iranians take the hostages to start with.
4) Ignored his own generals who told him the plan wouldn't work.

In many ways, we got off easy with Eagle Claw. I think it was only about seven guys who died because they never encountered a single Iranian. If it had gone full throttle, we'd have lost about half the hostages and most of the extraction team.

Of course, carpet bombing Tehran would have shown them they effed up... which is what we should have done.

[elucidator]

Got a rough estimate on how many innocent people would have died in your masturbatory military fantasy? Just a rough guess will do.

[CaptMurdock]

Sure you can.


Well, I called that one, didn't I? :rolleyes:

[magellan01]

It took Bill Cinton's combination of tax increases, spending cuts, and a huge economic boom/bubble to get the annual deficits turned into surplusses. He did the hard work. He showed how to grow out of a deficit that supposedly could not be grown out of. Then GWB came along and wiped out all that progress in months.

Two things. The first is monumentally important and almost always overlooked. A huge reason the economy did so well during Clinton was that his presidency coincided with the explosion of the internet. The second thing is that the dot-com bubble burst and the stock market tanked while Clinton was in office, not after he left.

I can think of one exception on the R team. Sen. Barry Goldwater (R-Az) voted against an an Army helicopter program. A journalist asked why, since it was being built in his state. Goldwater replied "I don't care if they're building it in my living room - it costs too damn much!"

I never heard this, but I love it. God, could we use some of it now.

[Gyrate]

If left to him, we'd have never used the enhanced interrogation techniques that lead to bin Laden.You mean the enhanced interrogation techniques that didn't lead to bin Laden at all.

[Typo Knig]

Two things. The first is monumentally important and almost always overlooked. A huge reason the economy did so well during Clinton was that his presidency coincided with the explosion of the internet. The second thing is that the dot-com bubble burst and the stock market tanked while Clinton was in office, not after he left.

You are right. The stock market was not doing well by '08. I mis-remembered.

[Chronos]

You mean the enhanced interrogation techniques that didn't lead to bin Laden at all. This needs repeating, because the lie about torture being good is both so persistent and so dangerous. Not only did absolutely none of the information that led to the raid on bin Laden come from torture, but the information we actually did get from torture was wrong and probably significantly delayed that mission. Even if torture were not one of the most reprehensible evils possible, it still wouldn't be justified, because it doesn't accomplish anything.

[fumster]

Sure you can.

Obama deserves no credit because the intelligence and planning work that went into that operation far preceded him. That Bush was good, he planned the raid before we even knew where OBL was and the plan was so good it worked on a compound in a residential area even though it was designed for a cave.

[Leaper]

To be fair, I'm pretty sure a lot of that is due to right-wing operatives. Post on liberal sites, claim to be a liberal, and say that Obama is so terrible at advancing the liberal agenda that we should just vote him out and hope for a real liberal next time.

I dunno, there seem to be plenty who're pretty genuine, only some of which are roundly mocked by "fellow" liberals/progressives.

Whether that's reflective of the base in general, of course, is another thing entirely.

[Recovering Republican]

You mean the enhanced interrogation techniques that didn't lead to bin Laden at all.


Leon Panetta said they did.

http://today.msnbc.msn.com/id/42880435/ns/today-today_news/t/cia-chief-waterboarding-aided-bin-laden-raid/

"Enhanced interrogation techniques" were used to extract information that led to the mission's success, Panetta said during an interview with anchor Brian Williams. Those techniques included waterboarding, he acknowledged.

[Gyrate]

Leon Panetta said they did.

http://today.msnbc.msn.com/id/42880435/ns/today-today_news/t/cia-chief-waterboarding-aided-bin-laden-raid/Funny, Panetta told John McCain the exact opposite (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JmQo917I6TQ).

[Gyrate]

I missed the edit window but rewatched the Williams interview again. Panetta is quite sneaky. Listen to what he says:

1. Information leading the raid came from a variety of sources
2. Some of those sources were detainees subject to interrogation
3. Some detainees were subject to enhanced interrogation techniques
4. Waterboarding is an enhanced interrogation technique.

What he carefully never says, but is happy to let viewers infer, is that the detainees in point 3 are the same detainees that gave up the useful information. We already know that useful information was garnered from detainees subject to the more standard forms of interrogation.

Why he might want people to think that CIA-sanctioned torture wasn't in vain is also left as an exercise for the reader.

[Merijeek]

Why he might want people to think that CIA-sanctioned torture wasn't in vain is also left as an exercise for the reader.

So he did the weasel-word equivalent of "Some people say that he was caught through the use of waterboarding".

Gotta love our media culture - they let anything slide for "access".

-Joe

[furt]

Heh. Came across this article today, and thought of this thread. For those who thought the Obama-fellating was confined to 2008, I give you the current Esquire:

Before the fall brings us down, before the election season begins in earnest with all its nastiness and vulgarity ... can we just enjoy Obama for a moment? Before the policy choices have to be weighed and the hard decisions have to be made, can we just take a month or two to contemplate him the way we might contemplate a painting by Vermeer or a guitar lick by the early-seventies Rolling Stones or a Peyton Manning pass or any other astounding, ecstatic human achievement?
...
"I am large, I contain multitudes," Walt Whitman wrote, and Obama lives that lyrical prophecy.
...
Barack Obama is developing into what Hegel called a "world-historical soul," an embodiment of the spirit of the times. He is what we hope we can be.
...
Obama's gift is the same as his curse: He's somehow managed to be like the rest of us, only infinitely more so.http://www.esquire.com/features/thousand-words-on-culture/loving-obama-0811#ixzz1T976xpyH

[Recovering Republican]

I missed the edit window but rewatched the Williams interview again. Panetta is quite sneaky. Listen to what he says:

1. Information leading the raid came from a variety of sources
2. Some of those sources were detainees subject to interrogation
3. Some detainees were subject to enhanced interrogation techniques
4. Waterboarding is an enhanced interrogation technique.

What he carefully never says, but is happy to let viewers infer, is that the detainees in point 3 are the same detainees that gave up the useful information. We already know that useful information was garnered from detainees subject to the more standard forms of interrogation.

Why he might want people to think that CIA-sanctioned torture wasn't in vain is also left as an exercise for the reader.

Oh, really?

No surprise here to me.

Why hasn't Obama moved all the detainees to New York and put them on trial, like he promised he would?

Why hasn't he closed down Gitmo?

Why do we still have some troops in Iraq, THREE YEARS into this fool's presidency?

This guy made his political bones whining and carping about everything Bush and Cheney did to keep us safe, but he hasn't ended one of their policies.

Because the last thing he wants is for Al Qaeda to blow something up when he's running for re-election.

Not that he should worry, he's doing more damage to the country than Al Qaeda ever could dream of.

[Chronos]

Mayor Quimby even released Sideshow Bob -- a man twice convicted of attempted murder. Can YOU trust a man like Mayor Quimby? (Vote Sideshow Bob for mayor.)

[Recovering Republican]

Mayor Quimby even released Sideshow Bob -- a man twice convicted of attempted murder. Can YOU trust a man like Mayor Quimby? (Vote Sideshow Bob for mayor.)


Hey, you might be on to something there... Bin Laden might have thrown his hat into the ring to run as a Democrat. I mean, you don't even need to really be a citizen to get their nomination...

Obama was probably bumping off the competition... Probably because the public educated dummies might get confused between an "S" and a "B".

[Little Nemo]

Why hasn't Obama moved all the detainees to New York and put them on trial, like he promised he would?

Why hasn't he closed down Gitmo?

Why do we still have some troops in Iraq, THREE YEARS into this fool's presidency?

This guy made his political bones whining and carping about everything Bush and Cheney did to keep us safe, but he hasn't ended one of their policies.Is this going to be the Republican strategy?

Vote Republican - because the Democrats have failed to fix all the things we did wrong the last time you voted for us.

[Recovering Republican]

Is this going to be the Republican strategy?

Vote Republican - because the Democrats have failed to fix all the things we did wrong the last time you voted for us.


No, vote Republican because the Democrats have made EVERYTHING a lot worse.

[Little Nemo]

No, vote Republican because the Democrats have made EVERYTHING a lot worse.Did the Democrats send the detainees to Guantanamo?

Did the Democrats invade Iraq?

Did the Democrats institute water-boarding and enhanced interrogation?

Did the Democrats deregulate the finance industry?

Did the Democrats enact DOMA?

Did the Democrats reach the highest level of post-war unemployment?

All the Democrats need to do is sit back and promise to do nothing in office for the next four years. That'll still put them ahead of the party that creates new problems.

[MaxTheVool]

First of all, speaking as a generally pro-Obama liberal, it's certainly true that, particularly leading up to the election, there was a LOT of extremely fervent pro-Obama rhetoric from a lot of liberals. Adulation would probably be a reasonable word for some of it. I'm not going to try to deny it happened.

That said, this whole "the one" business is extremely irritating. And there's an important reason why it's different than most insulting political nicknames.

Look at these two sentences:

1. Man oh man, Shrub sure screwed things up when he did X
2. Man oh man, "The One" sure screwed things up when he did X

Pretty much the same, right? Well, no. The difference, as I see it, is that "Shrub" as an insulting nickname for Bush is saying something about the person using it. It's saying "I personally dislike and mock Bush". Whereas "The One" as a nickname for Bush isn't saying something about the person using it, it's saying something about the person towards whom its usage is addressed. In other words, you could expand those two statements as:

1. Man oh man, I believe that former president George W Bush sure screwed things up when he did X. Oh, and I really disdain him.
2. Man oh man, I believe that president Obama sure screwed things up when he did X. Oh, and you liberals are blind partisan idiots who worship the ground he walks on.

One of them insults Bush. The other one insults liberals in general. That's why it's so jarring when used in contexts like GD. And that's why, Recovering Republican, if you honestly would like your thoughts and ideas to be respectfully and meaningfully communicated to people who currently disagree with them but might be open to some honest discourse (and if you truly believe that every last liberal on this board is 100% partisan and will never change their mind about anything, then why are you here?), you might want to reconsider your use of that particular "joke".

[Gyrate]

Oh, really?

No surprise here to me.

Why hasn't Obama moved all the detainees to New York and put them on trial, like he promised he would?

Why hasn't he closed down Gitmo?

Why do we still have some troops in Iraq, THREE YEARS into this fool's presidency?

This guy made his political bones whining and carping about everything Bush and Cheney did to keep us safe, but he hasn't ended one of their policies.

Because the last thing he wants is for Al Qaeda to blow something up when he's running for re-election.

Not that he should worry, he's doing more damage to the country than Al Qaeda ever could dream of.Since none of that refutes anything I said or supports anything you said, I can only assume that you now agree with me that waterboarding yielded no useful information.

[Peremensoe]

It turns out that Ron Paul is "the One." (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yk0bFHanY-0&feature=player_embedded)

[poker in the rear]

Shit, he was nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize within 12 days of taking office.

[Chronos]

What do you mean? There's no nomination process for the Nobel Prize.

[Merijeek]

Shit, he was nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize within 12 days of taking office.

Yeah, well the question is whether that is due to unrealistic expectations regarding Obama, or whether Dubya was just THAT fucking bad.

-Joe

[Ravenman]

What do you mean? There's no nomination process for the Nobel Prize.Yes, (http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/peace/nomination/index.html) there is.

[Typo Knig]

Yeah, well the question is whether that is due to unrealistic expectations regarding Obama, or whether Dubya was just THAT fucking bad.

-Joe

Both, and a careful reading of the interviews the head of that nominating committee gave led me the conclusion they didn't expect Obama to be alive a year later. The thought that us crazy, racist, gun-totin' 'Murricans would cack our first negro POTUS is not far enough out of line. At the start of Obama's term death threats were coming in at twice the rate of any previous president.