The Obama Phenomenon and the 2008 Presidential Campaign

[yovargas]

And I think that is a positive thing, that people are not saying that they are going to vote for him simply because he has roughly the same skin color as they do.

* 20 billion

[Frelga]

I don’t consider Obama an African-American in the way we usually use the term - to refer to black descendants of those who were first enslaved, then legally segregated in every sense imaginable.

Nel, could you please define the "we" for me? Is we = everybody except Frelga? Because this is the first time I came across this usage.

[vison]

And I think that is a positive thing, that people are not saying that they are going to vote for him simply because he has roughly the same skin color as they do.

* 20 billion

I agree, as far as that goes. But to not vote for him because he's not "black enough"? Where does that put things? It seems remarkably like cutting off your nose to spite your face.

It reminds me very strongly of the Quebec referendum of a few years ago. There are many Francophone Quebecers who have names like Johnson, or McPhee, etc., going back to the Irish potato famine of 1845/6, for reasons too long to explain here. And there is the current PM of Quebec, Jean Charest. There are those Francophones who say that the Quebecers with names like "Johnson" et al are just not laine vrai because they aren't descended in pure lines from the Norman French who first settled Quebec. Jean Charest? Ooooooo .......his name is "really" John, not Jean! (It isn't, it's Jean.).

Of such things are politics made, I suppose. Very discouraging.

[axordil]

And I think that is a positive thing, that people are not saying that they are going to vote for him simply because he has roughly the same skin color as they do.

I agree...and I wouldn't expect ANY candidate to have that expectation.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

But to not vote for him because he's not "black enough"? Where does that put things? It seems remarkably like cutting off your nose to spite your face.

vison, as Ax has pointed out, there is likely only a small handful of particularly vocal people who feel that way.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

I presume that most people have heard about the YouTube video that uses the old Ridley Scott Apple ad that appeared at the 1984 Super Bowl to skewer Hillary Clinton as the embodiment of Big Brother. Well it turns out that the ad was created by a man who worked for company that did work for Obama. Although he was fired (he claims he resigned) and the Obama campaign disavows any association with it, he will likely have done more damage to Obama (who he claims to support) then to Clinton, since it gives a black eye to Obama's claim to be above that kind of negative politicking.

Meanwhile, John Edwards and his wife have scheduled a news conference, and the speculation is that she has had a recurrence of her breast cancer. I surely hope that that is not true, and that he is not forced out of the race for that reason.

Also meanwhile, Al Gore made is first appearance on Capital Hill yesterday since he left office as Vice President, to testify about global warming. I would not be surprised at all if he ends up joining the race, which would actually likely give Obama a boost, because Gore would be most likely to siphon off support for Clinton.

[Primula Baggins]

Meanwhile, John Edwards and his wife have scheduled a news conference, and the speculation is that she has had a recurrence of her breast cancer. I surely hope that that is not true, and that he is not forced out of the race for that reason.

So do I, on both counts, but I suspect it's a recurrence. Her cancer was evidently somewhat advanced when they found it in 2004, as they needed to do chemo before surgery to shrink the tumor (none of us HoF breast cancer patients had to do that).

I'm sure she's been monitored closely, so chances are it isn't anything advanced, but it's still bad news.

Someone close to the campaign, though, has said that we should not be expecting "the worst" with regard to Edwards' campaign, so the news about Mrs. Edwards' health may be disappointing but not dire. We'll know in a couple of hours, I suppose.

In more cheerful news, here is a link to a brief but (to Democrats, anyway) amusing video from Gore's testimony yesterday.

[Faramond]

I don't think that ad hurts Obama. There's a casual connection between the guy and Obama, but not a substantial one. It's not as if this guy was a blogger that Obama invited onto his campaign. The connection is flimsy, if one wants to claim Obama had knowledge and ordered this.

And since the ad isn't offensive, I don't think it matters. Well, it may be offensive to Clinton supporters. It's a biting, negative ad, but it's also a clever ad that uses Clinton's own doubletalk against her.

If only the some of the submitters to the moveon.org ad contest vack in 2004 had been that clever and compared Bush to Big Brother instead of opting for the Hitler comparisons. Though Bush as Big Brother doesn't quite work. Big Brother doesn't have such a hard time putting sentences together, after all. Maybe Cheney or Rove.

[Primula Baggins]

So Edwards and his wife have had their press conference. She has, evidently, a small metastatic tumor in one rib, but apparently nothing elsewhere at this point. She'll begin a form of chemo that will continue for the rest of her life—less devastating than the kind she initially had—and has been told that many women live actively for years with this, though it can't be cured. So they are continuing the campaign.

So, bad news, definitely, but it could have been worse (I mean for her).

The Obama ad—I didn't see it as terribly effective. I'm not backing Hillary at this point (I'm not backing anyone), but it feels like a stretch to identify her with Big Brother. Big Campaign Money, certainly, but that's not really an ideological crime.

[Cerin]

I didn't understand the Big Brother ad either. What has Hillary ever done that would suggest she has tyrannical aspirations? From what I understand, she has been a very effective Senator.

But I don't think it hurts Obama, since he had nothing to do with it.

I do not think Al Gore will enter the Presidential race. He is being very effective in his current role, and the media has always detested him (for what reason I don't know). I think their constant mocking and scorning of Gore played a significant role in getting Bush elected the first time, and he would doubtless be in for more of the same if he tried again.

I thought the Edwards news sounded pretty devastating ('no cure'). Her children are so young.

[Primula Baggins]

"No cure" is devastating, but that doesn't mean no treatment is possible or that life is over. Some people are even able to eliminate all detectable tumors. It's just that once there has been metastasis, you are never technically "cured" even if for years there's no tumor. I've encountered women online who've been living with metastatic breast cancer for 11 or 12 years and are still active in their lives. This disease can be aggressive and fast-growing, but often it isn't.

The bleak joke is that the only way to know that you've been cured of breast cancer is to die of something else. You just hope, and as the months and years go quietly by, you hope more. Finally, like my mother (after 23 years), you realize that you're not thinking about it any more.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

I do think the ad might hurt Obama. Despite the fact that his campaign had nothing to do with it, the appearance will be there for many people. Appearances are more important then reality.

I'm very sorry about the news about Elizabeth Edwards. She strikes me as a very admirable person. She works hard on her husband's campaign, without seeking the type of high-profile position that Hillary always sought. Beyond the personal tragedy, I'm afraid this will be very damaging to the Edwards campaign. Rightly or wrongly, many people will think that he will be more focused on his wife's health then in running the country.

Cerin, I mostly agree with you about Gore. But I can't believe that he has completely lost that sense of ambition that drove him for so long. If he keeps hearing from people that he needs to run, he may just heed the call.

[Cerin]

Prim, thank you so much for that additional information. I feel vastly comforted for the Edwards family.

Voronwë, I agree with you about the impact on the Edwards campaign. In fact, I'm pretty sure he has made a statement or statements previously that his decision to run would depend entirely on his wife's health, so people will likely cite it as a 'flip-flop'. And as you say, some may think he is putting his ambition ahead of his concern for her. I feel fairly certain based on my impression of them that they make their decisions as a team and that he would certainly not continue if she were not 100% behind it. In the same vein, I just heard a reporter speaking yesterday about the chance of Gore getting in the race, and she commented that she'd been talking to Tipper ('his number one advisor') and detected not one iota of enthusiasm from her for the idea.

As far as Gore's sense of ambition, it seems to me that he had a genuine epiphany when letting go of the 2000 race, which he alluded to in that amazing concession speech, and I get the sense he is quite fulfilled in his present role. I remember someone saying recently, can't remember who, that Gore threatened to hang up on him if he called again asking him to enter the race. On the other hand, he has declined to close the door on the possibility entirely.

[Primula Baggins]

Here's an interesting summary of Gore getting unfairly slammed and slimed in the press, now and in the past:

http://mediamatters.org/columns/200703200006

[Faramond]

Everytime I read you guys pat each other on the back and talk as if the liberal viewpoint is the truth and the light and all jump on what I say, I once again get the feeling that a non-liberal viewpoint just isn't welcome or wanted around here. I already know from at least two of our members that only non-liberals can be racist ... I dare not ask what other nasty things only we un-enlightened are capable of. But I'm sure I'm just suffering from conservative delusions or something. Maybe I'm getting Rush Limbaugh transmissions on the fillings in my teeth.


I guess I should explain how I see the ad. Yes, it's an exageration. It's not saying H. Clinton has totalitarian aspirations. It's saying that despite appearances, she is not the inevitable Dem candidate, that Dem voters don't have to just follow her and her doubletalk, don't have to follow someone who voted in favor of the war in Iraq which should be a deal-breaker for Democrats. ( I just don't get her free pass from everyone in her party but the hardcore office invader types. ) It's saying there is another way. Listen to the things she saying as she talks up on the big screen in the ad. It's a clever remake of an existing ad, as well, which makes it a lot different than if it had been an completely original creation. I think the proof that the ad is effective is that it just wouldn't work with any other Dem candidate. It only works with Clinton. If she's been an effective senator, that just begs the question ... how did she get to be senator in the first place? How did she get to be the frontrunner in the Dem race? It's frightening close to how our current President got to be where he is.

Look, it's a good ad. I just don't see how that's debatable, though I'm obviously in the tiny minority here. It's an inspired choice of material to parody, and it's well done and makes its point well. Now, it is a negative ad. One can still dislike the ad, of course. One can not agree with the points it's making, or one can not think the points it's making important. One can think it's bad for Obama, even though he didn't have anything to do with it. But it is effective.

And, may I say, that anyone who dared to say Edwards was flip-flopping because he's still running while his wife has this ongoing treatment will be shouted down into the first circle of hell. Look, when these guys run they are putting their family second. All of them. That doesn't mean they don't love their family, but that's the reality of what it takes to run for and then maybe become President. Whatever Edwards may be doing to his family isn't any worse what Obama or McCain or any of the others are doing.

V, I only think appearance trumps reality when reality has no chance of punching through the initial appearances. I think for both Obama and Edwards reality will win out, that Edwards is not flip-flopping, that he isn't endangering his wife, and that Obama didn't have anything to do with the creation of that ad. They will continue to have the stage, and there is a lot of time between now and the primaries.

[axordil]

Faramond--

For what it's worth, you and I parse the 1984 ad, the Edwards news, and the current situation on the Democratic side very similarly.

[yovargas]

Everytime I read you guys pat each other on the back and talk as if the liberal viewpoint is the truth and the light and all jump on what I say, I once again get the feeling that a non-liberal viewpoint just isn't welcome or wanted around here.

Is that refering to something in this thread?


Faramond, I respect your views a lot and I consider myself independent, I guess, but from my perspective you seem to take the stance of the persecuted around here with very little provocation. It almost feels like disagreeing with you is the same as saying you're not "welcome or wanted around here", which is absurd. What do you want? Many of our members are liberals, which means they believe liberal ideas and are likely to disagree with non-liberal ones. What are you asking for, that they stop holding their beliefs and start holding yours?

[Primula Baggins]

Faramond, when I am talking to a friend with whom I know I share an opinion, stating what we share does not mean that I think everyone on the board agrees with us, or that the universe should agree with us, or that no one else may speak, or that we few, we happy few are right and infallible. It means we're talking about a topic of mutual interest on which we happen to share similar opinions. Much like most of the rest of this board.

If you want to say something different, no one is stopping you. Yet you seem to preface a lot of those statements of disagreement with lectures about how we ought not to talk to each other about things we agree about (apparently), and how oppressive this is to you personally and to others with differing views.

Are we really being oppressive of those who disagree with us because we feel free to express our own opinions? Or are we simply to shut up and do our political discussions via PM, so that you and other conservatives don't feel stepped on?

I'm honestly tired of being accused of being smug and self-congratulatory simply because I hold an opinion you don't agree with. There is evidently no way I could express such an opinion that would not be, in your view, unfair to you.

So I won't try. As for the decision the Edwards family made: I would have said the same if I were Elizabeth Edwards. The idea that my husband would abandon something so important to both of us in order to sit and hold my hand at home when I don't need him to—when I am still well and functioning and able to live my life—that would fill me with horror. The last thing a cancer patient wants, in my experience, is to be treated as being sicker than she is.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

Everytime I read you guys pat each other on the back and talk as if the liberal viewpoint is the truth and the light and all jump on what I say, I once again get the feeling that a non-liberal viewpoint just isn't welcome or wanted around here.

But Faramond, who has jumped on anything that you have said? That is what I don't understand. There are many, many of us that look forward to your opinion, and I wish that you felt like you could express it without feeling oppressed. I don't think that anyone is trying to oppress you here.

Look, it's a good ad. I just don't see how that's debatable, though I'm obviously in the tiny minority here. It's an inspired choice of material to parody, and it's well done and makes its point well. Now, it is a negative ad. One can still dislike the ad, of course. One can not agree with the points it's making, or one can not think the points it's making important. One can think it's bad for Obama, even though he didn't have anything to do with it. But it is effective.

I agree that it is an effective ad; it would have been more effective if it hadn't been done by someone that can be associated with the Obama campaign.

And, may I say, that anyone who dared to say Edwards was flip-flopping because he's still running while his wife has this ongoing treatment will be shouted down into the first circle of hell. Look, when these guys run they are putting their family second. All of them. That doesn't mean they don't love their family, but that's the reality of what it takes to run for and then maybe become President. Whatever Edwards may be doing to his family isn't any worse what Obama or McCain or any of the others are doing.

People won't say it out loud. But it will have a subtle effect on who they vote for. I don't think it should, but I think it will.

V, I only think appearance trumps reality when reality has no chance of punching through the initial appearances. I think for both Obama and Edwards reality will win out, that Edwards is not flip-flopping, that he isn't endangering his wife, and that Obama didn't have anything to do with the creation of that ad. They will continue to have the stage, and there is a lot of time between now and the primaries.

Faramond, I hope you are right. I'm afraid that you have a higher opinion of the American voting public then I do.

[Faramond]

I guess I should just stay out of threads you post in, Prim. It's just disruptive when I respond to your posts.

Yes, I've gone back and read and I see that I'm wrong. Again. Sorry for the disruption.