It turns out that I’m not the only one who views Obama as a cipher, someone so fundamentally blank that others are able to project on him their own hopes, beliefs and desires. John Podhoretz says almost the same thing, so I feel as if I’m in fairly good company:
If you love Barack Obama, as almost everybody interested in U.S. politics does right now, ask yourself this simple question: What do you know about his opinions on any subject?You probably remember he gave a masterful speech at the 2004 Democratic Convention. You recall how he spoke and that it was he who spoke: a poised and handsome black man with a deep voice that’s reassuring and commanding at the same time.
But what did he say?
Admit it. You don’t really care.
Obama is an uncommonly opaque rock-star politician, though not through any fault of his own. He’s written and published two wildly successful books, a memoir and a rumination on politics and policy. But of the million or so people who’ve bought his books, I’d wager only a tenth have sampled more than a few pages. They don’t need to read Obama to love him. They love that he writes and he publishes. They love how he speaks. They love the fact that he exists. They love the way he makes them feel.
This is the key to his appeal, and it places Obama in a very unusual position for an elected politician: He is now the semi-official Rorschach Candidate of 2008.
The Rorschach Candidate is the one who provokes enthusiasm not because of the positions he takes but because of who he is. He doesn’t seem like a politician; he seems to be better than a politician – fresh, new, different.
The Rorschach Candidate is especially exciting because under normal circumstances he couldn’t possibly take the nomination, and his race for president would seem like a revolutionary and transformative act in itself.
You can read the rest here.
del.icio.us
digg itFiled under: Barack Obama
Good article. I understand fully the belief that Obama lacks experience and should, therefore, not be the Democratic candidate for president in 2008. What baffles me is that some people seem to dislike him because he’s young or because other people do like him. What one thinks should happen in 2024 is a bit harder to justify. By that time much water will pass under the bridge. Bookworm stated clearly yesterday that she isn’t falling for this crap.
I am curious, though, as to the thinking behind why a Republican would want so much input into who the Democrats nominate. In some ways that violates the Jewish person “taking pot shots at Jew” idea. Why not take pot shots at other Republicans and let the Democrats cleanse from within? Ah, but I know the answer. All’s fair in love and politics. (Which is why it’s called “dirty”!) It’s not about each party choosing its best candidiate and letting the best of the best win. No sadly, it isn’t.
I take potshots at everyone, Helen. I view that as the blogger’s prerogative. Whether Dems should listen is another question. Certainly, the more I hear Dems praise McCain, the less I like him — although I never liked him, even when I was a Dem. For reasons I can’t explain, but maybe going back to the S&L scandals, I don’t trust him.
It never has been about each party choosing its best candidate. It’s always been about which candidate can best maneuver the system, put together the organization that raises the most money, and be in a position to take delivery of delegates based on previous favors done and largesse passed out.
That’s why people like Clinton, Obama, McCain, Giuliani et al spend years running around the country “helping” other people get elected. They are of course helping only themselves. They are engaged in putting other people in debt to them, so when what they regard as their time comes, they will be owed – fund-raising assistance, favors, delegates, whatever.
It’s always been about such maneuvering, and whoever maneuvers most effectively gets the nomination. “Best” has only occasionally had anything to do with it, and then usually by accident.
Sadly, JJ, you are right.
But, even with the money, organization, and debts to collect, you still have to function when you’re around voters.
Interestingly enough, this next election cycle is seeing something that I don’t think we’ve seen a lot before, which is that Hillary seems to think she should get the nomination by acclamation.
Which is also, I suspect, why a nothing like Obama is all of a sudden being blown up by the media. It’s occurred to a lot of people, as Hillary continues to poll with very high negatives (generally around 50% in polls say they wouldn’t vote for her – period) that if they go with her they might be in trouble.
Interesting article in, of all things, the NY Times, link below.
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/12/13/nyregion/13patti.html?_r=1&ref=politics&oref=slogin
Hillary is very, very, very controlled. She is not, for example, going to visit every county in Iowa for the Iowa caucuses – because somebody might ask her a question that was unscripted. People in Iowa will not appreciate that. (She also sees that, I’m sure, as the annoying minutiae she should be regarded as being above.)
A lot of it is meeting and greeting, and Hillary hasn’t been asked a tough question in six years. She hasn’t had an honest press conference in years. Her handlers don’t permit it – but out on the trail it’s hard to keep it under control. And when Hillary is left on her own, she’s shrill, she’s screeching, she’s carping: she’s a harpy. (Which is why they don’t let an unscripted word pass her lips.)
But here’s what I see as interesting. I think the sudden emergence of Obama is a clear indication that the democrats do not wish her to simply have a coronation. There is a lot of uncertainty over how well she does when forced to think on her feet, and a lot of uncertainty over just how widely loved she really is.
Hyping somebody well beyond any level of competence or experience he may bring to the table, and throwing him at her, accomplishes a couple of things. It tells her it isn’t just going to be a coronation, she’s going to have actually work for it. It also reminds her that she is not seen as a shoo-in by a lot of folks in her own party. And it reminds her that she’s going to have to actively function in the process, and when some guy in Iowa asks a hard question, there better be a – at least semi-reasonable – answer. You can’t be insulted because someone had the temerity to ask something, and you can’t just ignore it, either.
I think the existence of Obama is a clear indication that there are a lot of democrats who aren’t so sure she can function outside her bubble.
Color me (still) unimpressed with Mr. Obama, as I noted on October 27
helenl asks about “the thinking behind why a Republican would want so much input into who the Democrats nominate”
It’s because Democrats (surprisingly) are Americans, too, whose candidates are subject to critiques from every manner of citizen, regardless of party. It’s called democracy. As President Bush impressively demonstrates, a President must uphold the best interests of all of us, regardless of party.
JJ is clearheaded and comprehensive in his comments.
We will never envision Hillary as having Margaret Thatcher
breeding. I could never see her as a war leader.
Red states like mine will vote against her for that very reason.
She’s merely a good, vicious political infighter whose skills may indeed procure the nomination.
I cannot stress this enough–I could spend 4 years hearing his voice on the news; the thought of listening to Hillary’s voice for four years makes me retch. I don’t care if he’s for grinding up puppies–anybody except Hillary!!!
[...] others are also starting to figure out that Obama has absolutely no experience, but is merely a man onto whom liberals project their wishes. Thus, John Dickerson, writing at Slate, has an article entitled “Obama’s Achilles Heel,” [...]