Ironduke

The Cult of Obama
by Ironduke
2/11/08

Barack Obama's presidential effort more closely resembles a religious movement than a presidential campaign. An underwhelming lightweight when it comes to issues of substance, issues, and policy, Obama has managed to garner mass popular support through his mastery of rhetoric and oratory. With gatherings that are closer to cult religious services than political rallies, Barack Obama speaks in messianic language, as if he is the Second Coming of Christ rather than a candidate for president of the United States.

At least Hillary Clinton doles out regular doses of specific policy proposals, she can be given credit for that much. On the other hand, Barack Obama doles out vague, indefinite yet somehow inspiring and mesmerizing messages of “change” and “hope”. “We are hungry for change, and we are ready to believe again,” says Obama. Cast a look at his followers, and you'd think the man could feed thousands with two loaves and five fishes, turn water into wine. To see the way some of the people behind him grasp and cling to every word he says, one might expect him to turn around, place his hand upon her head like a healing Evangelical pastor, and cast the cancer right out her body.

He occasionally, fleetingly speaks of the issues faced by ordinary Americans, such as the mortgage that can't be paid, crumbling schools, and so on. But the only real proposal that he's made is that tax breaks will be taken away from companies like Maytag that “ship jobs overseas.” So how do we fix the problems of foreclosures and crumbling schools, Barack? Any ideas? I've yet to hear one.

Obama sounds an awful lot like Martin Luther King, Jr. Dr. King used a similar style of oratory to inspire the masses to march toward a worthy goal – civil rights for blacks. At least he had an end goal that was concretely defined. Obama steals a page from Dr. King's playbook, yet there are no defined end goals to accompany his message.

With lines such as “our time has come” and “we are the ones we've been waiting for,” perhaps Barack Obama is actually the Messiah returned in the flesh to establish the Kingdom of God. If he isn't, he needs to drop the vagaries and start talking some substance. Perhaps all we need is for Walter Mondale to pop his head around the corner and ask, “Where's the beef?”

__________________
The Buck Stops Here

FibrillatorD

Its funny you mention Walter Mondale. Here's a guy who's just been around too long. And I say that with reservations because I actually took a class with the guy last semester, easily the best poli-sci class in my time here at the U. He was around during a very defining era, and he knows just about every in and out of the nation's and the state's capitol. A true public servant and a really likable guy on top of it all. But as he's gotten old he's let himself become one of the embedded interests holding back the party and the country, the stuff of Obama's fuzzy "the past and the future" talk.

Simple example. In 1968 there was a very inspiring campaign with RFK and Eugene McCarthy. In fact, our virgil friend Jad has already compared Obama to RFK, tons of buzz and excitement like what's going on today with the Obama cult following his campaign day and night. Except RFK was murdered, so hopes went down the tube overnight, and it was obvious McCarthy wasn't going to win.

Here's the thing though: had he lived, RFK STILL probably wouldn't have won the nomination. Despite winning most all 13 primaries at the time, his campaign lagged to Hubert Humphrey in delegate counts at the time of his death. Hubert, the embedded, old guard candidate of his day, executed a strategy to game the system and court the majority of delegates who "represented" states without primaries, and at convention got their votes after a series of backroom/under the table deals, despite receiving only 2.2% of the vote. Not democratic at all. The superdelegates of then, like today, consisted of embedded interests unaccountable to anyone but themselves. Entrenched, and so, out of favor.

But one good thing came out of the 1968 Dem convention: a resolution to reexamine how the party chose its nominee. Definitely a tribute to the late RFK for having inspired a whole new segment of the country with his failed candidacy to join in the party. Lo and behold, by the next election the system had actually been completely reformed, and so in '72 a bona fide grassroots liberal, George McGovern, got nominated. And in '76 under the same rules, another one, Jimmy Carter. The system got reformed because new people got involved after RFK and they didn't want to lose them. Today, with the average age of Obama's supporters around 30, the party and the country has a lot to lose if they don't accommodate them over the next 4 years. Another source of hope for change with Obama.

But by 1980 the party elders had had enough, and so they un-reformed the process all over again. They retook all the superdelegates weighing down the party and elections today - all current and former Prezes, VP's, Speakers, Minority Leaders, along with all current Governors, Congressmen, and Senators, and several hundred party officers who aren't elected by any actual voters. (They're elected by themselves at convention.)

And so its ironic that Mondale could get into the White House on such great party reforms and turn his back on them 4 years later. What happened? He got in office, and by the time he got out you didn't have to look any further than his campaign to know he was corrupted.

I don't know how else to explain the turnaround. After riding on the back of a dark horse in '76, he rides out of the White House 4 years later as one of those embedded interests who in '76 would've kept an upstart like Carter out of the WH. But he and people like him have been digging in their feet ever since that era, halting change and frustrating young people like me. For 2008 Mondale pledges his super vote to supporting the establishment candidate at convention. Big surprise. I mean that kind of shyt should get every Democrats' blood boiling. Obama supporters get it. We gotta fire baby, a religious fire. And the only thing that'll put out that fire is some cowbell!

Ironduke

Embedded interest? Just what the heck is that supposed to mean? Is that Obama-speak for "if you're older than me, you don't belong in public office." What's Ted Kennedy?
RFK -- brilliant comparison. The man would have largely been a nobody if not for the crooked 1960 election and his brother's nepotist appointment of him as Attorney General, and the sympathy because JFK got shot.
Hubert Humphrey was far from being some old guard fuddy-duddy, he was actually quite progressive and liberal, supporting humanitarianism overseas, federal assistance to the poor, civil rights, etc. Kennedy was as much an establishmentarian candidate as Humphrey. You deride the Clinton machine and say out with the old and in with the new, yet the Kennedy machine and that line of succession is OK.

And you speak of RFK winning the primaries while losing the caucuses -- sounds alot like Hillary Clinton. Hillary Clinton has won most of the primary states, while Obama has won most the the caucus states. You rail against the caucuses, except when Obama is winning them.
Mondale was facing a wildly popular incumbent President -- the politics in America shifted, and to win a presidential race, a candidate must steal the center. Bill Clinton stole the center in 1992 and 1996. Look at Labour in England, the reason for their success is because they were able to steal the center from the Tories.

Ironduke

Some replies from other forums:

Liberty Lounge:
Military Photos:

leo

I am so sorry but I have to do this... this is just a LITTLE bit of who and what kind of experience you are voting for - when you vote for Hillary :

This is someone else's post but it is the REAL facts about what Hillary has done or should I say everything she hasn't done - but slack off. If this was a non elected job - she would have been fired a long time ago or may be even in the first 90 days...

I thought this needed to be said because it is further proof of how substantiative Obama is compared to the fraud Hillary Clinton. I am tired of uninformed voters and HRC campaign posers trying to distort the facts? Please read the following information gathered from the Library of Congress. Feel free to check these records for yourself; better still, read a little more, and try and stay current before posting assinine comments:

Clinton v. Obama on Legislative Experience:
Senator Clinton, who has served only one full term (6yrs.), and another year campaigning, has managed to author and pass into law, (20) twenty pieces of legislation in her first six years. These bills can be found on the website of the Library of Congress (www.thomas.loc.gov), but to save you trouble, I'll post them here for you: 1. Establish the Kate Mullany National Historic Site. 2. Support the goals and ideals of Better Hearing and Speech Month. 3. Recognize the Ellis Island Medal of Honor. 4. Name courthouse after Thurgood Marshall. 5. Name courthouse after James L. Watson. 6. Name post office after Jonn A. O'Shea. 7. Designate Aug. 7, 2003, as National Purple Heart Recognition Day. 8. Support the goals and ideals of National Purple Heart Recognition Day. 9. Honor the life and legacy of Alexander Hamilton on the bicentennial of his death. 10. Congratulate the Syracuse Univ. Orange Men's Lacrosse Team on winning the championship. 11. Congratulate the Le Moyne College Dolphins Men's Lacrosse Team on winning the championship. 12. Establish the 225th Anniversary of the American Revolution Commemorative Program. 13. Name post office after Sergeant Riayan A. Tejeda. 14. Honor Shirley Chisholm for her service to the nation and express condolences on her death. 15. Honor John J. Downing, Brian Fahey, and Harry Ford, firefighters who lost their lives on duty. Only five of Clinton's bills are, more substantive. 16. Extend period of unemployment assistance to victims of 9/11. 17. Pay for city projects in response to 9/11 18. Assist landmine victims in other countries. 19. Assist family caregivers in accessing affordable respite care. 20. Designate part of the National Forest System in Puerto Rico as protected in the wilderness preservation system.
There you have it, the fact's straight from the Senate Record.
Now, I would post those of Obama's, but the list is too substantive, so I'll mainly categorize.

During the first (8) eight months of his elected service he sponsored over 820 bills. He introduced 233 regarding healthcare reform, 125 on poverty and public assistance, 112 crime fighting bills, 97 economic bills, 60 human rights and anti-discrimination bills, 21 ethics reform bills, 15 gun control, 6 veterans affairs and many others. His first year in the U.S. Senate, he authored 152 bills and co-sponsored another 427. These inculded **the Coburn-Obama Government Transparency Act of 2006 (became law), **The Lugar-Obama Nuclear Non-proliferation and Conventional Weapons Threat Reduction Act, (became law), **The Comprehensive Immigration Reform Act, passed the Senate, **The 2007 Government Ethics Bill, (became law), **The Protection Against Excessive Executive Compensation Bill, (In committee), and many more. In all since he entered the U.S. Senate, Senator Obama has written 890 bills and co-sponsored another 1096. An impressive record, for someone who supposedly has no legislative record. . . . My last point: Obama needs name recognition, he needs to be among the people, so people feel like they have access to him. HRC's debate challenge is more about the fact that her campaign is running low on money and she gets free air-time without spending anything. Would you give up the chance to see 20,000 voters up close and personal to be on a televised debate? No way! Obama, stick to your guns. Debate on your terms, not Hillary's! Go Obama 2008!

I have been looking at ALL candidates for over the last yr +... Hillary at first was one of my picks - then I did my own dive into ALL of the candidates - as much as I could - little by little with NO biasness toward any of them from ANY party - recording all most all of the debates too...

There are reasons she doesn't want to talk about her records...

There are all so reasons why Obama doesn't bring them up... you can't say you are gonna change the game and still be a part of the same old game at the same time... it's called character and morals - some people have it and some don't...

It's not about Democrats against Republicans... that sounds like Americans against Americans to me - **** that old way of thinking. Thats Hillarys polarizing mind set - she votes for the war then blames the Republican President for her vote... ??? Don't get me wrong, Bush was driven by fear and misplaced fear at that... the worst kind. But Hillary - YOU voted to give the man power to wage the war, and she wont even admit - what is plan as day... I don't see how that is very intelligent or honest thing to do to the American people... many, many, too many people have and are falling for it...

Hillary is a follower - not a leader...


Divided We Will Fail

Ironduke

Highly inaccurate.

The writing details ONLY legislation Clinton has authored AND have been passed into law. It wants to make you think that Obama is 50 times more productive, yet HOW much of what he's authored has made it into law?

BELIEVE ME, there is such thing as writing up legislation and amendments for political show. RON PAUL has done it his entire career. It's an established tactic for US Representatives to draw up legislation for the SOLE PURPOSE of having to show to their constituents back home as well as further future political aspirations, even though they KNOW it doesn't have a snowball's chance in hell of being passed into law. I guarantee that the overwhelmingly majority of Obama's legislation has never even made it out of committee.

gunnut

He has a concrete, end goal in mind. He wants to be president. Everything after that is just details.

__________________
"Only Nixon can go to China." -- Old Vulcan proverb.

leo

It show just some of what he did that did pass into law the - we can look it up at the Library of Congress. To me it just as much his honesty and strong convection to kick out lobbyist and special interest from government which was finally the first time I've EVER heard a candidate say this... along w/ Edwards.

No I'm NOT a Democrat or a Republican - I was but got tired of all the fighting among the two parties like little children - NOTHING gets done in government that way. That is the one reason I like McCain too - he will work w/ everybody to get SOMETHING done even if I don't agree with everything he says. Hillary ALL WAYS blames Republicans even for her own vote - it's stupid and sad.... ??? She is very polarizing and will get nothing done in Washington !!!! I don't get how people don't see through that and see all of her dirt - there is SO much of it...

FibrillatorD

I don't know where Ted entered the picture but if you want my opinion I'd say that yes, despite endorsing my guy, Ted has long joined the ranks of the old guard. To stay in office that long means you have gamed the system, not changed it. Which means Ted is part of the problem, a parasite of his party and the democracy.

Not the point. What kind of president would he have been? I dunno, but at least he went about getting to office the right way. (For the record, I probably would have supported McCarthy).

Again, not the point. RFK was bona fide, Humphrey wasn't. I don't even need to use a capital D to say Humphrey's nomination was a spitwad in the face of democrats. If you wonder why Obama supporters airheadedly idolize a guy who's late to detail the specifics of his gameplan, its because he isn't going stoop to the level of Clinton and Humphrey in order to enact them. Its very possible for a candidate to be "liberal," good progressive policies, and completely illegitimate, as was Humphrey. No wonder he lost to Nixon.
I'll rephrase what I said: there were 13 states in 1968 with Democratic party nomination procedures (primaries or caucuses. I meant primaries generally). Kennedy won delegates legitimately, at primaries from delegates who were voted to convention by real people. Which means he could at least point to some legitimate basis for his nomination, unlike Humphrey, who could only point to his career and his agenda, as if that matters when you only represent yourself and your cronies at the top of the party. No wonder he lost.

Small d democratic, those are the meager principles and policies Obama must satisfy in order to be a better Democrat than Clinton. That's how out of whack the party's gotten under the old guard, and that's why record numbers of mostly young people flock to the guy ("the fierce urgency of now")
You're talking about policies again. Fritz sold out on democratic principles in becoming a centrist Democrat. This after benefiting from a rule change that got Jimmy Carter into office. When the rules un-changed and Mondale-the-established gamed the system, he became part of the problem. He got too high on his horse and said "fyck you" to the grassroots base.

And Democrats wonder why they've had a hell of a time winning elections since Carter.

Bill stole the center in '92 and '96. Good for him. In '92 he was saying things that sounded a lot like what Obama's saying today. Except now he and Hillary have turned their back on that kind of talk. They've become part of the problem.

Ironduke

Fib, I've read over your post, and I think arguments contain appeals to novelty (a logical fallacy), which the Obama campaign has committed time and again. Just because something is new, does not mean it is better.
Nobody takes a presidential election without stealing the center. If Obama clings to the left, he cannot win. The Democrats have a strong chance of exhausting their supporters willingness to donate with the Obama-Clinton battle while the Republicans swing their machine into action a few months before the Democrats can, take the center early on while drawing upon untapped reserves.

FibrillatorD

My argument is for legitimacy. Which, because of human nature I guess, precedes a high turnover of government. We're a representative democracy, not an aristocracy dammit. Obama, regardless of his policies, is closer to the grassroots, and therefore a better democrat. Call it populism or a logically-fallacious form of demagoguery if you want, I don't mind the prospect of (for once) feeling a strong connection to my own government. In fact I suspect his presidency will lift the nation's spirits somewhat like Reagan's did (or so people tell me). That kind of thing trickles down all the way to the street, it saturated the caucus. The grassroots approach can work both ways.
We'll see. Again, I think you place too much weight on Obama's Democratic policies and underestimate his democratic ones. One's thing for sure in 2008: if Obama is the nominee there will be lots of new voters, and lots of young voters. That's how he's stayed through the primary

Ironduke

I wouldn't be surprised if there's backlash from quite a few of the older, working class "Reagan Democrats" currently in Clinton's camp if Obama wins the nomination. A long-drawn out nomination process is clearly unfavorable and I expect it to swing back Clinton's way after the March 4th primaries. Anyhow, this is a long way from being settled, the Democratic race will likely that way until May.

captain

From FOX 26 News in Houston and via LGF the following two pics are still images from a couple of short news items.

They are from two different offices of Obama's volunteer supporters apparently in Houston and the wall decor is interesting.

As an interested observer from far away, I wonder what sort of people are being attracted to "the cult" and what might they expect of him in return.

Cheers.

20080211ObamaCheHouston2.jpg

20080211ObamaCheHouston.jpg