Figuring Out Obama
By Alan Stewart Carl | Related entries in 2008 Election, BarackAmerica has a new favorite political game. It’s called “Guess That Obama.” You see, anytime Obama gets into a jam, all the political yakkers start spouting theories on what the jam tells us about the “true” Obama. So, with Rev. Wright, we questioned Obama’s patriotism and religious beliefs. Now with the “cling” gaffe, we question whether or not he’s a liberal elitist.
This never happens to Hillary Clinton or John McCain. Why? Because they are known commodities. When McCain cozies up to the religious right or Clinton professes a love of guns, we don’t get worked up because we know the truth of it (McCain is no fundamentalist, Hillary is no NRA member). When they pander, we know they are pandering and while we might call them out on it, we don’t start questioning their core beliefs.
But Obama is so unknown that supporters and detractors alike must, well, cling to every unscripted moment in an attempt to discover the deeper truths of this man. This is going to be an ongoing problem in his campaign. For him to win, he’ll need to keep on script as much as humanly possible and, when jams do occur, he must weather the storm of interpretations without confusing the matter anymore. The “Obama explanation speech/ Huffington Post column” could become a fixture of this campaign.
Obama supporters are just going to have to accept that their candidate is going to be put under the microscope more than the other candidates. We didn’t know George W. Bush very well either, so I think we have strong and recent historical reasons to be extra vigilant before choosing our next leader. Waiting another four or eight years would have helped Obama solidify his record and image. But he chose to run now and thus must face the consequences.
This entry was posted on Monday, April 14th, 2008 and is filed under 2008 Election, Barack. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
April 14th, 2008 at 9:59 am
Obama is a pied piper. Only children and the weak minded believe his bs. He has already peaked. Now the fall starts. His momentum will sqeak out a democratic victory but by november the vast majority of americans will despise him and his lies.
April 14th, 2008 at 10:01 am
I find the punditry amusing. Everytime Obama gets in a jam, the pundits all come to say how this has ruined him, killed his campaign, will destroy him by the republicans, blah blah.
True to form the republicans all gather around and say the same things they have for 15 years and Hillary is out there pandering her heart out. It’s so predictable.
What is not is that Obama always seems to overcome these things because what the pundits and republicans and Clintons cannot understand is that the old ways are over. The people like what Obama says even if it defies the conventional wisdom or because it does.
People understand the games played. They are sick of them. And this is why Obama will beat the republicans just like he did the Clintons and makes the pundits look like fools on a regular basis.
The only thing I can’t understand is why Clinton and pundits and republicans never figured it out. They are still behaving like it’s 1999. And the people just roll their eyes at all the breathless denouncements and think them all clowns.
April 14th, 2008 at 10:13 am
Alan, I think you hit the nail on the head. What has concerned me is that it feels like 2000 all over again, with W. We didn’t know him very well, and well, the last eight years have sucked. I don’t want to place another person in the Oval Office and have a liberal version of Bush.
What has also concerned me is how people are placing whatever they believe on to Obama, just as some people did with Bush. Because he is so unknown, people see what they want to see.
That said, I would like believe I’m wrong.
April 14th, 2008 at 10:18 am
I agree vwcat, he is the only man who can save America!!! Ron P… err… OBAMA for president!!!
April 14th, 2008 at 11:07 am
Certainly vwcat expresses what a lot of people feel about the political games, but in this case I think that ASC is right about why this resonates with voters (still- even though a group of them feel fed up with it, as vwcat does.)
At issue is whether or not a politician is committed enough to his position statements to fight against those who oppose those ideas or policies. That’s why the pandering matters (if you aren’t sure of whether or not the pandering reflects some softness in holding a line against the hardline policies that the panderees represent) and that’s why the comments made in candor (which might reflect a truer core principle than the one expressed in the white papers) matter. It’s not enough to know what the candidate says he’ll do, it’s important to know how he’ll follow through.
April 14th, 2008 at 11:14 am
ASC,
Once again I remove foot fr0m mouth and apologize for poor judgement. I can’t believe I keep falling into the same ‘ol trap with you and assume you’re blinded by the neocons agenda when u constantly show broader points of view.
Using this very same rationalization, Mr. Sanders, wouldn’t it be equally silly to compare a potential Obama presidency to anything we’ve just been thru with the Bush administration? Consider the pedigree of each man, the life experiences, how they carry themselves and communicate their ideas. How could anyone say that there’s a comparison just b/c they both lacked a voting record is beyond me!
So if we all just take a bit of chill pill here for our exuberance and try to figure out if, maybe, someone like Obama isn’t just exactly what this country needs at such a crucial time, that might be good. As you put it, Mr. Carl, we know what we get with the other two candidates. For me they’re just negatives.
April 14th, 2008 at 11:38 am
Brilliant quote from a reader at Tim Blair’s Blog:
April 14th, 2008 at 12:33 pm
Here’s what Obama is, he’s human, and as a result he on occiasion phrases things in a manner that may offend if you parse each individual word, Cling merely means to hold onto, to adhere to and resist being seperated from, the late Heston once said that you’d have to pry his gun from his dead hands, people adhere to their beliefs in times of trouble.
The problem people have is with the sound, the connoatation of the word cling, if he said People would resist to having their guns taken away people would have agreed, even though it means the same thing
April 14th, 2008 at 1:33 pm
Avinash: I’d submit that it’s actually the part about “in times of trouble” that some people have a problem with. I don’t think most religious people deny clinging to their faith- but it’s offensive to say that they only do so in times of trouble, or that a downturn in their economic condition is the reason for the depth of their faith. Even if you believe that this is true for the majority of self described religious believers, it’s impolitic to state it.
April 15th, 2008 at 8:19 am
I think you’re spot on, Alan. This really is the reason why Obama will be hit with more of these blows than McCain or Hillary. Even amongst his supporters, there is still some doubt that srises when these gaffes happen. Usually, when more seasoned pols have these problems, they can fall back on their policy experience, or their established reputation. Obama’s policy record is still pretty thin, and we still don’t him as well as we know McCain or Clinton. It leaves him open. It’s shouldn’t, but it does.
He needs to figure out to work around this.
April 15th, 2008 at 10:23 am
It’s nonsense that Obama is being subjected to closer scrutiny than either Clinton or McCain. Need I remind his followers that every comment, misstatement, lie Hillary, Bill or their supporters have make has also been addressed? Same goes for MCain, although, if the latter has not received as much critique as the former, it’s due to less limelight and fewer blunders.
Also, let’s not omit the fact that MSM has gone out of its way to bury this story, like it did with Wright’s. Additionally, if forced to comment it errs in favor of Barack.
As for the so called “faux-pas,” it’s hard to rationalize “he misspoke” notwithstanding his supporters’ darnest endeavours. To claim he didn’t candidly say what he meant and didn’t mean what he said, behind closed doors to a group of likeminded people is akin to insanity.
Forgive me, for remaining skeptical. This ulterior “blooper” is another reflection of the man Obama.
No misunderstanding. He was clear and to the point when he expressed that voters in certain parts of the country “turn to guns and religion” when feeling bitter, and that spurs them to being anti-immigrants, etc.
He waited until his remarks became public to chuck them up to “badly worded and wrongly meant.”
Can anyone explain how the charismatic, educated, well-spoken, articulate Barack keeps getting himself into these pickles?
Since impartiality from his supporters is an illusion considering the high investment they have made into this candidate, it’s evident truth doesn’t resonate well with this group. However, their determination to justify, reinterpret and “help” others understand the man behind the mask is a sight to behold and an exercise in foolishness.
To call the rest of us, indirectly stupid or unable to understand what Obama said and meant is ludicrous.
Both he and Gotti may be made of teflon, but as with Gotti, sooner or later something will stick.