What's behind Obama?

Great Debates
1

It seemed to me that, as far as the public was concerned, Obama pretty much came out of nowhere in 2004. He appeared on the public stage at exactly the same time that talk of his being a future president appeared on the public stage.

Which makes his ascent to public awareness seem… staged.

I was reminded of this by the present wave of (apparently, to me anyway, staged) claims of several politicians that they have decided to support Obama because their teenage or college age children begged them to do so.

Did everybody just figure out that’s a good story to tell separately, or is the Obama campaign somehow suggesting to them that they ought to tell this story?

And who or what was responsible for his original appearance on stage in 2004?

(Or am I just getting everything all wrong?)

-FrL-

Who is up too late and so more incoherent than usual.

And who will probably vote for Obama in any case.

2

I think it is case of perfect timing.
It is no secret that Bush has totally alienated the world, 99.9% of Democrats and even a large percentage of Republicans.

Up comes a fresh new face, with no real baggage to speak of, with an optimistic viewpoint and a stark contrast to everything that has happened in the last seven years.

Initially, few (including myself) really considered him a viable candidate. Then his funny name (ain’t so funny anymore) and his race started to be less and less of an issue and people took another look and compared him to the others in the running. They liked what they saw and heard, and thanks to the Internet, money started to flow in and he was able to run a credible, well-financed campaign.

Whether or not Obama actually wins the Primary, or goes on to win the General Election, I think a lot of people feel good that he has already gotten this far.

His strong run for the Presidency has shown that America really can change course on a dime and he has confounded pundits who never gave him a chance in hell of being anything more than a footnote in American history.

Obama now has a real chance of going all the way - and I doubt any odds maker in the world would have laid odds on that even just a few months ago.

3

The Obama phenomenon is a media creation. A study supports this contention. He’s not as progressive as Hillary when it comes to healthcare. He’s a greenhorn when it comes to National Security. He lacks the grasp that Hillary has on economic issues. He only does well in speeches where he has teleprompters but in debates fairs poorly against people who actually know their stuff.

All he ever touts is his vote on Iraq when the Illinois State Legislature had a majority against the war, when a year later he pulled down the speech off his website because it is “dated”, when he voted exactly like Hillary Clinton ever since, when he said he didn’t know how he would have voted in their stead. The fact is, the rationale for the vote on Iraq was credibly presented and at a time like that, who would have expected that Bush would lie about the intelligence and betray them into a war. Nobody.

This is his strongest case for his presidency - a speech that he pulled down a year later because it is “dated”.

4

Can I have a cite for the study that shows “The Obama phenomenon is a media creation?”

also

is wildly inaccurate.

Lincoln Chaffee the former Republican senator of RI voted against the war and goes on to say (ETA in his new book):

“I find it surprising now, in 2008, how many Democrats are running for president after shirking their constitutional duty to check and balance this president,” writes Chafee. “Being wrong about sending Americans to kill and be killed, maim and be maimed, is not like making a punctuation mistake in a highway bill.

“They argue that the president duped them into war, but getting duped does not exactly recommend their leadership. Helping a rogue president start an unnecessary war should be a career-ending lapse of judgment.”

Chafee was the only Republican senator to vote against prosecuting the war. “The top Democrats were at their weakest when trying to show how tough they were,” writes Chafee. “They were afraid that Republicans would label them soft in the post-September 11 world, and when they acted in political self-interest, they helped the president send thousands of Americans and uncounted innocent Iraqis to their doom.

“Instead of talking tough or meekly raising one’s hand to support the tough talk, it is far more muscular, I think, to find out what is really happening in the world and have a debate about what we really need to accomplish,” writes Chafee. “That is the hard work of governing, but it was swept aside once the fear, the war rhetoric and the political conniving took over.”

A bewildered Chafee, seeking an explanation, turned to an unnamed Democratic senator who opposed the war but was well-respected by his party’s leaders. This senator tells Chafee “in confidence” what concerned the Democrats. “They are afraid the war will be over as fast as Gulf One. Few will die, the oil will flow and gasoline will cost 90 cents a gallon.”

5

Plenty of people did; you just weren’t paying attention, apparently.

6

The OP is intolerable. He appears to be saying that a small faction within a big faction is working behind the scenes to seek power with the help of the current establishment. Well, I have a couple of words to say to such a fool: Audacity! Hope! Change! Togetherness! Healing! America is the Best, Last Hope for the World! Are you feeling light headed yet?

I’m pretty dense so I’m having trouble parsing this and I’m hoping you can help me out. You aren’t saying that the media is making fraudulent claims in reference to Obama’s polling numbers, right? If you’re saying the media has helped launch awareness of Obama and his hoary propaganda then I, again, must pause and ask…huh? We don’t elect Presidents via word of mouth. There have been newspapers and pamphleteers from the start. Your observation, while correct, doesn’t make sense to me with the details you listed afterward, whether they are correct or not. “The ____ phenomenon is a media creation” works for anyone, try it out: Hillary Clinton, FDR, Wilson, Polk…

Odd, the international press didn’t seem to struggle much with it. Nor anyone who knew what they were talking about.

7

Exactly. They didn’t want to be on the wrong side in case things worked out.

8

I was at the XL center in Hartford Last night, and I will say this to Andruil - YOU ARE DEAD WRONG

The ENTIRE stadium was packed to capacity I was shoulder to shoulder to a group of Yale students who were the loudest folks I can remember - When Barac Finally came into the stadium the ENTIRE crowd ROARED. He is ahead now in CT, and will hopefully take the state along with the other states today.

Phenomenon - He entered the stage at a calculated time, when America wants to change the way things work here. I was rivited last night, and still have goosebumps from listening to him and all the supporters last night. WOW!

9

Sen. Chafee sounds like a Republican I could actually vote for. In the years we’ve been occupying Iraq, it really bugs me when I hear a Democratic Senator cover his or her ass by claiming “When we voted for the resolution, we didn’t know he’d actually invade.” Horseshit; I knew it at the time, as a civilian layman, and don’t believe that all those Senators were blindsided.

Obama doesn’t have the foreign policy experience that you’d like in a new President, but on the other hand, people are sick of the experienced people we’ve had for the last seven years – old-guard people like Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, even leftover Iran-Contra criminals like John Negroponte. I think I’d prefer somebody who doesn’t have the experience yet, but at least has goals I can agree with.

Every single candidate on both sides keeps using the word “change”; with Obama, I think people believe it. I’m cautiously optimi – well, cautiously less pessimistic than usual.

10

Why was he given time at that Democratic convention? Because the powers that be always like to feature those who they perceive as the up and coming generation, especially those who present “big tent” faces. Sometimes they tap into rising stars, sometimes into duds. That time they hit it right.

Why did he capture the public’s eye? Two reasons. The message was refreshing - an optimistic vision of a united America after years of extremely divisive political posturing. And his ability to deliver that message with style - an ability that stood in particular stark contrast to anyone else around him, especially compared to that year’s nominees on both sides.

His views are actually fairly centrist on most issues. He knew the war was a bad idea from the start. He panders less than most. His intelligence is obvious. But those facts are discovered by most later - he is the star because he can manage to get a cynical populus, young and old, optimistic and idealistic again, engaged in the process of helping our country be a force for good in the world after years of being ashamed of the decisions our government has made in our names.

11

You might find this article interesting as it pretty much addresses your question, and details the series of events that lead to his meteoric ascent in politics. The article asserts that it’s a combination of the right political climate, luck and the natural ability to capitalise on that political climate and luck.

12

If he reads from teleprompters, he has outstanding peripheral vision since on the stump he often paces as he talks. His debating skills have grown in the past few months. He holds his own against The Cackler now.

Bah. The title of the bill was authorization for the use of military force. Sounds like war to me. And I’ll believe until the day I die that Hillary voted yes so that she could appear tough on terrorism in the 2008 election.

Why the phenonemon? He speaks of hope and unity. When he talks, it is we are going to do great things. Hillary talks of the things she will do. He is the alternative to the bitter partisanship of the past two decades. As Joe Scarborough says, he can be against your political agenda without seeming to hate you. He speaks of a post-partisan era. I think that is exactly what the country needs.

13

It’s a case of the right guy getting the right breaks by being at the right place at the right time.

He managed to win a close primary for the Illinois Senate nomination, and had the luck to have his Republican opponent implode. As such, he was able to run an positive campaign, rather than a brutal slugfest.

Off of this, he came to attention of national Democrats, when he was picked for the keynote address at the 2004 Democratic National Convention, which has before been a platform for rising young politicians (see Clinton, William Jefferson). Giving the speech, Obama hit it out of the park.

As “rookie of the year”, he’s kept media attention, and used that to push his positive message of hope. He published his second book on this message, which was actually readable for a political position piece, and it became a best seller.

When the Presidential field was forming up, he again got lucky. Except for has-beens like Biden, there were no senior and popular Democrats who were lining up to run. His main opponents were junior Senators, so the issue of 4 vs. 6 vs. 8 years in the Senate didn’t seem so big. Hillary Clinton was the early leader, but with her hugely polarizing image, she wasn’t a lock on the nomination. As a black man with a compelling personal story, Obama got a lot of early and positive press. Politically, the positions of Obama, Clinton & Edwards are very close, so it has come down to an issue of the how people feel about their personalities and perceived strengths and weaknesses.
In short, he had the good fortune get into an election that turned out to be essentially uncontested, got a unique opportunity and made the most of it, was able to find a place in a relatively junior field of Democratic candidates, and if is nominated, will be running against a fractured Republican party wounded by the disastrous Bush presidency. Though he’s had a lot of lucky breaks, he’s been able to capitalize on them by his tremendous personal magnetism, vibrant speaking style, integrity, obvious intelligence and political skills. He got the breaks and capitalized on them.

14

Sen. Obama is being advised by Zbigniew Brzezinski, co-founder of (cue organ music) THE TRILATERAL COMMISSION!!! :eek: :eek: :eek:

:smiley:

15

And nobody could have anticipated that Bin Laden was planning to strike inside the U.S. with planes.
Except for the millions of people who expected and realized that very thing, of course, you are totally correct. Dislike or distrust Obama all you want, but since I was on the “right” side of this particular point in history I would appreciate if you don’t rewrite it.

Billdo and Kayeby have it closest, I think. The favorites in the Democratic primary fell apart, especially Blair Hull, who was undone by relevations that he’d hit his ex-wife and (I think) done cocaine. So Obama’s style caught on against a more wide-open field. Then Ryan withdrew over the swingers’ club thing, and Obama had months to go to every corner of the state, build support, and be positive and hopeful without having to fight off an opponent and endure regular criticism. Other potential nominees realized it was a lost cause - there was talk of Mike Ditka running at one time- so eventually the GOP went out of state and had Alan Keyes try to knock some of the sheen off Obama, which didn’t work.
And it goes without saying that Obama’s speech at the Democratic Convention went over like gangbusters. I’m pretty sure I saw “Obama in 2012” on some friends’ blogs the next day.

16

It’s hard to take Andruil seriously, and at times I think he is delibrately trolling for angst among dopers. But if I were to give him the benefit of the doubt as a non-American, I’d say he does not se what is going on here in the states. I don’t put much stock into what he says, and his digs on Obama are getting old - I mean touting that Obama has run a diry campagin without putting up any semblence of a cite - because there aren’t any simply says to me he’s blowing smoke.

That being said, when Obama walked into the stadium last night - a packed to capacity XL Center - the entire crowd ROARED will cheers. I imagine a United States where the young future leaders see an Obama Presidency as one to stand behind and dare I say fight for. A true United States where our economy slowly takes a turn out of a recession and into a thriving market. A United States where more people actually like the president as a person and as a commander in chief aand as a capable president- I believe Obama is that man.

17

From an outsider’s position: I don’t plan to vote for Obama or Clinton.

Obama is a serious lightweight. He’s got little if any experience in any of the areas Presidents handle. I can deal with Presidents not having all the expereince they might find useful (that would more or less anything and everything). Obama hasn’t ever shown any executive ability in anything that I’m aware of.

He is a top-notch public speaker, a cross between Martin Luther King r. and John F. Kennedy. Younger people are especially attracted to this, along with his young age, good looks, and message. On that last note, I’ll basically say that his “message” is as facile and superficial as politics get. Hope, CHange, and 'Yes We Can." That’s not much. He does have the standard requisite policy positions, but it’s clear these are secondary elements to his campaign.

Against a serious Democrat, he wouldn’t stand a chance. But Hillar is not serious. She’s pretty well devoid of experience as well, and travelling on a few goodwill missions or occaisionally holding a carefully controlled press release do not qualify hre to be President. Her hideously commonplace Senate campaign didn’t, either: I’ve seen more courage and leadership in toy poodles. Her positions are all “Me Too!” by-the-polls strategizing.

Heck, in a recent TV commercial right here, she actually said something to the effect of endorsing NOT having the government bail out private business or mess with the markets. Given her record, this takes some serious stones!

Aside from which, many Democrats seem to be noting that (a) they don’t really want more Clinton, (b) The CLintons are pretty bloody sleazy, and, © much of the country is intensely irritated by their existence.

Now the important bit:

In any other race, Obama wouldn’t win. Wouldn’t come close. In this one, the circumstances are unusual. Hillary started out so strong that no one thought she could lose the Dem’s nomination. And most of the hopefuls simply stayed out. The ones who didn’t proved to be marginal figures or wingnuts (cough Dennis Kuchinic cough). But Obama had nothing to lose. And while he might not win, he probably figured that worst come to worst, it would raise his visibility several notches. But as it turned out, the Queen wasn’t wearing any clothes (ghastly mental image). Her support was all financed by her family political machine, and wasn’t based on real groundwell support.

As it is, she may still win. She’s got a lot of the Superdelegates, and today’s votes may swing the issue massively one way or another. Obama might have been just a hair too late, and may have closed the gap to a a few percent, but Clinton might still have enough support to stay in the lead and shut him down.

18

Well put. I think this sums up exactly how many people feel about Barack Obama. Maybe it is time for idealism to trump cronyism and for hope to knock fear into the back seat.

And I just pray that Hillary doesn’t win. I don’t want to feel like we can’t escape these two families ruling our country any longer. It’s like we’re a monarchy.

Hillary in 2008…Jeb Bush in 2012!

:frowning:

19

Wha?? Which hopefuls are you talking about?

20

His popularity is due to him being at the right place (Dem Nation Convention), at the right time (2004, at the height of everyone being fed up with Dubya), saying the right thing (his speech was off the chain). The opportunity introduced the nation to a fresh face who happened to have a presidential bearing and a riveting message.

Nothing more complicated than that.