|
Obama's Cult of Personality
|
|
Topic Started: Nov 10 2008, 03:05 PM (729 Views)
|
|
Franko
|
Nov 13 2008, 09:47 PM
Post #31
|
Shower Moderator
- Posts:
- 7,303
- Group:
- Cadet
- Member
- #299
- Joined:
- January 9, 2005
|
- RTW
- Nov 11 2008, 02:46 PM
As disgusting as their idolatry is, the enormity their eventual disappointment will be great intertainment.
So, you're saying that you wish to see Obama's presidency fail miserably. So you don't care just how bad that could affect your country ?
You'd rather see your nation screwed up even further for some petty sense of political revenge ?
Even if I had been a McCain supporter I would at least hope that the president-elect helps my nation.
I remember this same talk about Clinton, when first elected.
He did 8 years and didn't do too badly.
Enjoy the next 8 years of Obama-land.
Your fear of this guy is my entertainment.
|
|
|
| |
|
Dandandat
|
Nov 13 2008, 09:58 PM
Post #32
|
Time to put something here
- Posts:
- 17,948
- Group:
- Flag Officer
- Member
- #34
- Joined:
- August 30, 2003
|
- Franko
- Nov 13 2008, 09:47 PM
- RTW
- Nov 11 2008, 02:46 PM
As disgusting as their idolatry is, the enormity their eventual disappointment will be great intertainment.
So, you're saying that you wish to see Obama's presidency fail miserably. So you don't care just how bad that could affect your country ? You'd rather see your nation screwed up even further for some petty sense of political revenge ? Even if I had been a McCain supporter I would at least hope that the president-elect helps my nation. I remember this same talk about Clinton, when first elected. He did 8 years and didn't do too badly. Enjoy the next 8 years of Obama-land. Your fear of this guy is my entertainment. I dont think thats what he said; he was resonding to this.
- Quote:
-
Hopefully some of these people will come to their senses and see that they elected a man, not a god.
I think his point is correct; Obama no matter how good he preforms will always just be a man, and he will not be able to do many of the things the more "enthusitastic" people think he will be able to do. They will than be disapointed.
Thats what happens when you sell people "Hope" its very hard to dliver on "hope"; Obama will pay for hat in upcoming elections.
|
|
|
| |
|
RTW
|
Nov 13 2008, 09:58 PM
Post #33
|
Vice Admiral
- Posts:
- 7,678
- Group:
- Senior Officer
- Member
- #543
- Joined:
- February 12, 2006
|

Rather than jump to conclusions and straw man arguments, why don't you ask me what I mean? Or, you can continue to post responses to statements not made. Either way is fine with me.
|
|
|
| |
|
Franko
|
Nov 13 2008, 10:31 PM
Post #34
|
Shower Moderator
- Posts:
- 7,303
- Group:
- Cadet
- Member
- #299
- Joined:
- January 9, 2005
|
- RTW
- Nov 13 2008, 09:58 PM
 Rather than jump to conclusions and straw man arguments, why don't you ask me what I mean? Or, you can continue to post responses to statements not made. Either way is fine with me.
Cute, but I did ask you what you meant.
- Quote:
-
So, you're saying that you wish to see Obama's presidency fail miserably. So you don't care just how bad that could affect your country ?
You'd rather see your nation screwed up even further for some petty sense of political revenge ?
Aside from the fact that I agree there are some (many blacks perhaps who see Obama's election as cathartic) the idea that the majority of those who supported Obama see him as some kind of "god" figure (a total imaginary concoction of Ann Coulter and various rightist bloggers) is absurd.
He presented himself as presidential, intelligent, poised and eager to take on the difficult challenges America faces with dignity and optimism is what sold him to the public.
McCain dithered and generally ran a negative campaign which turned people off.
These are the bottom-line dynamics of the situation; the rest you can spin to your heart's content.
Obama's charisma is similar to Reagan's when he was first elected. Back then the "left" were making the identical accusations you're making now.
What goes around, comes around. I of course have stated many times on this board my adoration of Reagan and what he did for America, although the difference is this time that Obama is also very popular at an international level. Hopefully he (and therefore America) can use that to advantage.
There's nothing "creepy" about record voter turnouts and a whole new generation of Americans interested in politics again.
I've also stated before that Obama now has to deliver on all his rhetoric. He will have a dem-dominated Senate and Congress, I believe, so there is little obstruction to his agenda.
In the meantime, constantly condemning this guy before he's even been inaugerated and acted as president strikes me as a little bit irrational.
Sorry.
|
|
|
| |
|
Dandandat
|
Nov 14 2008, 12:02 AM
Post #35
|
Time to put something here
- Posts:
- 17,948
- Group:
- Flag Officer
- Member
- #34
- Joined:
- August 30, 2003
|
- Franko
- Nov 13 2008, 10:31 PM
Aside from the fact that I agree there are some (many blacks perhaps who see Obama's election as cathartic) the idea that the majority of those who supported Obama see him as some kind of "god" figure (a total imaginary concoction of Ann Coulter and various rightist bloggers) is absurd.
He presented himself as presidential, intelligent, poised and eager to take on the difficult challenges America faces with dignity and optimism is what sold him to the public.
McCain dithered and generally ran a negative campaign which turned people off.
These are the bottom-line dynamics of the situation; the rest you can spin to your heart's content.
If you say so Franko; but it seems to me you are romanticizing the events of the last few months. The idea that you would single McCain out for running a negative campaign when Obama’s campaign consisted of convincing us that the man who the Dems had courted to switch sides only months earlier, because of his many oppositions to President Bush, was somehow now Presidents Bush’s right hand man is laughable.
- Quote:
-
I've also stated before that Obama now has to deliver on all his rhetoric. He will have a dem-dominated Senate and Congress, I believe, so there is little obstruction to his agenda.
Once again I believe you to be incorrect; Its clear from his cabinet picks that Obama is anticipating having to stand up to congress rather than having a body that will go along with him. And I can understand why, if he plans to live up to what people expect of him.
But I do agree with you on one thing, I hope Obama can capitalize on the momentum he has, that he can deliver on his promised hope. It would be a good thing for the country if he can, and it would be a very bad thing for the country if it can’t. Promising hope is a very dangerous thing because it goes to the core of people. If you can’t deliver on that promise it can be quite devastating.
|
|
|
| |
|
fireh8er
|
Nov 14 2008, 04:46 AM
Post #36
|
I'm Captain Kirk!
- Posts:
- 9,118
- Group:
- Cadet
- Member
- #69
- Joined:
- September 30, 2003
|
- Franko
- Nov 13 2008, 10:31 PM
- RTW
- Nov 13 2008, 09:58 PM
 Rather than jump to conclusions and straw man arguments, why don't you ask me what I mean? Or, you can continue to post responses to statements not made. Either way is fine with me.
Cute, but I did ask you what you meant. - Quote:
-
So, you're saying that you wish to see Obama's presidency fail miserably. So you don't care just how bad that could affect your country ?
You'd rather see your nation screwed up even further for some petty sense of political revenge ?
Aside from the fact that I agree there are some (many blacks perhaps who see Obama's election as cathartic) the idea that the majority of those who supported Obama see him as some kind of "god" figure (a total imaginary concoction of Ann Coulter and various rightist bloggers) is absurd. He presented himself as presidential, intelligent, poised and eager to take on the difficult challenges America faces with dignity and optimism is what sold him to the public. McCain dithered and generally ran a negative campaign which turned people off. These are the bottom-line dynamics of the situation; the rest you can spin to your heart's content. Obama's charisma is similar to Reagan's when he was first elected. Back then the "left" were making the identical accusations you're making now. What goes around, comes around. I of course have stated many times on this board my adoration of Reagan and what he did for America, although the difference is this time that Obama is also very popular at an international level. Hopefully he (and therefore America) can use that to advantage. There's nothing "creepy" about record voter turnouts and a whole new generation of Americans interested in politics again. I've also stated before that Obama now has to deliver on all his rhetoric. He will have a dem-dominated Senate and Congress, I believe, so there is little obstruction to his agenda. In the meantime, constantly condemning this guy before he's even been inaugerated and acted as president strikes me as a little bit irrational. Sorry.
|
|
|
| |
|
RTW
|
Nov 14 2008, 11:46 AM
Post #37
|
Vice Admiral
- Posts:
- 7,678
- Group:
- Senior Officer
- Member
- #543
- Joined:
- February 12, 2006
|
- Franko
- Nov 13 2008, 10:31 PM
Cute, but I did ask you what you meant. - Quote:
-
So, you're saying that you wish to see Obama's presidency fail miserably. So you don't care just how bad that could affect your country ?
You'd rather see your nation screwed up even further for some petty sense of political revenge
No, you put words in my mouth and then went on a infantile rant based on your words, not mine.
- Franko
- Nov 13 2008, 10:31 PM
Aside from the fact that I agree there are some (many blacks perhaps who see Obama's election as cathartic) the idea that the majority of those who supported Obama see him as some kind of "god" figure (a total imaginary concoction of Ann Coulter and various rightist bloggers) is absurd.
He presented himself as presidential, intelligent, poised and eager to take on the difficult challenges America faces with dignity and optimism is what sold him to the public.
McCain dithered and generally ran a negative campaign which turned people off.
These are the bottom-line dynamics of the situation; the rest you can spin to your heart's content.
Obama's charisma is similar to Reagan's when he was first elected. Back then the "left" were making the identical accusations you're making now.
What goes around, comes around. I of course have stated many times on this board my adoration of Reagan and what he did for America, although the difference is this time that Obama is also very popular at an international level. Hopefully he (and therefore America) can use that to advantage.
There's nothing "creepy" about record voter turnouts and a whole new generation of Americans interested in politics again.
I've also stated before that Obama now has to deliver on all his rhetoric. He will have a dem-dominated Senate and Congress, I believe, so there is little obstruction to his agenda.
In the meantime, constantly condemning this guy before he's even been inaugerated and acted as president strikes me as a little bit irrational.
Sorry. If you were trully sorry you wouldn't have just done it again.
You still have no idea what I meant. Further, you don't even care. You just want to rant based on your misconceptions. Please be careful as straw if very flammable.
|
|
|
| |
|
RTW
|
Nov 14 2008, 01:20 PM
Post #38
|
Vice Admiral
- Posts:
- 7,678
- Group:
- Senior Officer
- Member
- #543
- Joined:
- February 12, 2006
|
- Franko
- Nov 13 2008, 10:31 PM
There's nothing "creepy" about record voter turnouts and a whole new generation of Americans interested in politics again. If you go by numbers, there were more voters ... but that's because the population is growing. The same faulty logic duped us into believing the a moderate drop in the stock market percentagewise was the largest one day drop in history.
If you go by the percentage of eligible voters that actually voted, there was an increase over 2004, but it still fell short of the record set in 1964.
As far as new voters, that percentage held steady at 13%.
link
|
|
|
| |
|
Minuet
|
Nov 14 2008, 02:30 PM
Post #39
|
Fleet Admiral Assistant wRench, Chief Supper Officer
- Posts:
- 36,559
- Group:
- Flag Officer
- Member
- #2
- Joined:
- May 19, 2003
|
- RTW
- Nov 14 2008, 11:46 AM
- Franko
- Nov 13 2008, 10:31 PM
Cute, but I did ask you what you meant. - Quote:
-
So, you're saying that you wish to see Obama's presidency fail miserably. So you don't care just how bad that could affect your country ?
You'd rather see your nation screwed up even further for some petty sense of political revenge
No, you put words in my mouth and then went on a infantile rant based on your words, not mine. - Franko
- Nov 13 2008, 10:31 PM
Aside from the fact that I agree there are some (many blacks perhaps who see Obama's election as cathartic) the idea that the majority of those who supported Obama see him as some kind of "god" figure (a total imaginary concoction of Ann Coulter and various rightist bloggers) is absurd.
He presented himself as presidential, intelligent, poised and eager to take on the difficult challenges America faces with dignity and optimism is what sold him to the public.
McCain dithered and generally ran a negative campaign which turned people off.
These are the bottom-line dynamics of the situation; the rest you can spin to your heart's content.
Obama's charisma is similar to Reagan's when he was first elected. Back then the "left" were making the identical accusations you're making now.
What goes around, comes around. I of course have stated many times on this board my adoration of Reagan and what he did for America, although the difference is this time that Obama is also very popular at an international level. Hopefully he (and therefore America) can use that to advantage.
There's nothing "creepy" about record voter turnouts and a whole new generation of Americans interested in politics again.
I've also stated before that Obama now has to deliver on all his rhetoric. He will have a dem-dominated Senate and Congress, I believe, so there is little obstruction to his agenda.
In the meantime, constantly condemning this guy before he's even been inaugerated and acted as president strikes me as a little bit irrational.
Sorry.
If you were trully sorry you wouldn't have just done it again. You still have no idea what I meant. Further, you don't even care. You just want to rant based on your misconceptions. Please be careful as straw if very flammable. Ok, I will ask you nicely. What exactly did you mean by your statement. To remind you which statement we are discussing I will requote it here:
- RTW
-
As disgusting as their idolatry is, the enormity their eventual disappointment will be great intertainment.
Just so you understand where others are coming from - you have made a definitive statement here. You seem certain that Obama will fail and therefore people will be disappointed. I believe that is why Franko thought that you wanted him to fail.
Sure wish I had an accurate crystal ball.
|
|
|
| |
|
Franko
|
Nov 15 2008, 03:51 AM
Post #40
|
Shower Moderator
- Posts:
- 7,303
- Group:
- Cadet
- Member
- #299
- Joined:
- January 9, 2005
|
jjj
Edited by Franko, Nov 15 2008, 03:54 AM.
|
|
|
| |
|
Franko
|
Nov 15 2008, 04:08 AM
Post #41
|
Shower Moderator
- Posts:
- 7,303
- Group:
- Cadet
- Member
- #299
- Joined:
- January 9, 2005
|
- RTW
- Nov 14 2008, 11:46 AM
- Franko
- Nov 13 2008, 10:31 PM
Cute, but I did ask you what you meant. - Quote:
-
So, you're saying that you wish to see Obama's presidency fail miserably. So you don't care just how bad that could affect your country ?
You'd rather see your nation screwed up even further for some petty sense of political revenge
No, you put words in my mouth and then went on a infantile rant based on your words, not mine. - Franko
- Nov 13 2008, 10:31 PM
Aside from the fact that I agree there are some (many blacks perhaps who see Obama's election as cathartic) the idea that the majority of those who supported Obama see him as some kind of "god" figure (a total imaginary concoction of Ann Coulter and various rightist bloggers) is absurd.
He presented himself as presidential, intelligent, poised and eager to take on the difficult challenges America faces with dignity and optimism is what sold him to the public.
McCain dithered and generally ran a negative campaign which turned people off.
These are the bottom-line dynamics of the situation; the rest you can spin to your heart's content.
Obama's charisma is similar to Reagan's when he was first elected. Back then the "left" were making the identical accusations you're making now.
What goes around, comes around. I of course have stated many times on this board my adoration of Reagan and what he did for America, although the difference is this time that Obama is also very popular at an international level. Hopefully he (and therefore America) can use that to advantage.
There's nothing "creepy" about record voter turnouts and a whole new generation of Americans interested in politics again.
I've also stated before that Obama now has to deliver on all his rhetoric. He will have a dem-dominated Senate and Congress, I believe, so there is little obstruction to his agenda.
In the meantime, constantly condemning this guy before he's even been inaugerated and acted as president strikes me as a little bit irrational.
Sorry.
If you were trully sorry you wouldn't have just done it again. You still have no idea what I meant. Further, you don't even care. You just want to rant based on your misconceptions. Please be careful as straw if very flammable.
TSK, TSK, RTW......
And you used to be such a big fan of mine.
I'll ignore your vieled threats for the moment and your infantile brush-off of my questions. I will no longer be participating any longer in any of this banter involving you or Dwayne.
There's a hostility going on here that I certainly never started. Adios.
|
|
|
| |
|
Wichita
|
Nov 15 2008, 08:01 AM
Post #42
|
The Adminstrator wRench
- Posts:
- 9,878
- Group:
- Admin
- Member
- #1
- Joined:
- May 1, 2003
|
I personally can't wait for the innaguration.
As I recall discussions here when the board first started, we were told, anytime that we criticized Clinton, that he was no longer president and mentioning his presidency was dismissed as irrelevant to whatever discussion was going on.
In January, Bush will no longer be president and it will be nice to see those who held that position practice what they preached and not discuss Bush's presidency at all when he is no longer president.
Just kidding!
Of course it is reasonable to compare the two and I look forward to the discussions.
It is also reasonable to assume that the president (regardless of who he/she is) will disappoint his/her followers. It is reasonable to assume to he/she will disappoint some of their followers a lot.
Given that there have been some public statements that under President Obama, we won't have to work to fill our gas tanks or pay our mortgages, we can assume that some will be very upset with him before long.
And, has he encouraged this cult of personality?
To some extent, I would have to say "yes".
Because we all do. It is human nature.
If you know that someone has a bit of a crush on you and can do you a favor, despite the fact you may have no interest, it is human nature to flatter them a bit with your attention to get them to do something. Now, if you were getting them to come over to clean your house, do your laundry and pay your bills that would be clearly be abuse. But them getting you a chance to buy concert tickets or a table at a resteraunt earlier isn't abuse - it's just taking advantage of the situations.
Obama hasn't clearly and definitively put an end to some of the more extreme behaviors. He probably couldn't end them anyway so why not use it to his advantage? It's not abuse, but isn't an example of impeccable ethics either.
He's being human - not godlike.
As far at the whole "hope and change" thing ...
I can't say that I have much hope for change.
Based on what I have heard so far, I believe that we are looking at a Clinton 3rd term - which given Obama's claims during the campaign about a McCain presidency being a Bush third term, make his comments pretty ironic.
So far I am not impressed at all with his efforts to include women in his administration. Hopefully, he will reconsider some of his announced plans. Otherwise, his administration will be several steps back for women in leadership roles.
And don't get me started on the trial balloon of Hillary as Secretary of State.....
First, there are huge issues with Bill's internatinal business deals Hillary as Sec of State will be problematic.
Second, Obama supposedly didn't pick a female VP because he didn't want to aggravate Hillary supporters. (And picked an incompetent Biden instead...) So how does he control her? I can't imagine he is going to cede control of his foreign policy to her so he is going to have confront her directly as some point potentially creating an even larger conflict with her support base that he thought he had before. He parts company with her before 2012 and he might have to kiss reelection goodbye.
Third, quite frankly her qualificatins pale in comparison to Richardson's - one of her chief rivals for the job. He might say some of the most new age stuff at times, but he has already done international hostage negotiation among other things. There is no reason based on qualifications to pick her first.
Fourth, so what if Obama picks her first? Big deal. We already have a female Secretary of State. There's no first there for Hillary.
It is such a bad decision that I personally think that there is something else going on - like Obama has buyer's remorse about Biden and is going to find a way to dump him and appoint Hillary as VP. That way Hillary still gets her "first" without having the rigors of another campaign and it is a sure thing this time - not like it would have been had he picked her originally. Then, at the end of his 8 years, she runs as an incumbent VP with considerably better international qualifications than she had before.
And, Franko, if you had money to invest during the Clinton presidency, it was a magical time. (Magical meaning that it appeared that you were going to be wealthy beyond your wildest dreams even though very few people actually achieved that wealth ....) For those of us without money to invest at the time, it was an economic nightmare.
|
|
|
| |
|
Intrepid2002
|
Nov 15 2008, 09:16 AM
Post #43
|
UNGH!
- Posts:
- 16,001
- Group:
- Cadet
- Member
- #155
- Joined:
- March 30, 2004
|
- Quote:
-
I personally can't wait for the innaguration. As I recall discussions here when the board first started, we were told, anytime that we criticized Clinton, that he was no longer president and mentioning his presidency was dismissed as irrelevant to whatever discussion was going on. In January, Bush will no longer be president and it will be nice to see those who held that position practice what they preached and not discuss Bush's presidency at all when he is no longer president.  Just kidding.
I'm going to have to dig up old posts and learn to use the old, "But we inherited this mess from the previous administration" argument.
Now there's the change we're all looking for. Everyone switching coats. We the opposition (wait a minute, we aren't that anymore) have big shoes to fill.
- Quote:
-
And, Franko, if you had money to invest during the Clinton presidency, it was a magical time. (Magical meaning that it appeared that you were going to be wealthy beyond your wildest dreams even though very few people actually achieved that wealth ....) For those of us without money to invest at the time, it was an economic nightmare.
To be fair, this can be said about any administration. In my adult working life, the Clinton and Bush administrations have been good to me. Strike that. I've been very, very good to myself and I'll continue to be good to myself in the Obama administration. Hopefully, he won't take away my overtime pay but I'm the type who doesn't mind sharing with the masses anyway.
Watch it people. Don't go socialist on me.
|
|
|
| |
|
Dwayne
|
Nov 17 2008, 10:20 AM
Post #44
|
Profanity deleted by Hoss
- Posts:
- 5,951
- Group:
- Senior Officer
- Member
- #153
- Joined:
- March 24, 2004
|
And it continues...
- Quote:
-
A Giddy Sense of BoosterismBy Howard Kurtz Washington Post Staff Writer Monday, November 17, 2008; C01 Perhaps it was the announcement that NBC News is coming out with a DVD titled "Yes We Can: The Barack Obama Story." Or that ABC and USA Today are rushing out a book on the election. Or that HBO has snapped up a documentary on Obama's campaign. Perhaps it was the Newsweek commemorative issue -- "Obama's American Dream" -- filled with so many iconic images and such stirring prose that it could have been campaign literature. Or the Time cover depicting Obama as FDR, complete with jaunty cigarette holder. Are the media capable of merchandizing the moment, packaging a president-elect for profit? Yes, they are. What's troubling here goes beyond the clanging of cash registers. Media outlets have always tried to make a few bucks off the next big thing. The endless campaign is over, and there's nothing wrong with the country pulling together, however briefly, behind its new leader. But we seem to have crossed a cultural line into mythmaking. "The Obamas' New Life!" blares People's cover, with a shot of the family. "New home, new friends, new puppy!" Us Weekly goes with a Barack quote: "I Think I'm a Pretty Cool Dad." The Chicago Tribune trumpets that Michelle "is poised to be the new Oprah and the next Jacqueline Kennedy Onassis -- combined!" for the fashion world. Whew! Are journalists fostering the notion that Obama is invincible, the leader of what the New York Times dubbed "Generation O"? Each writer, each publication, seems to reach for more eye-popping superlatives. "OBAMAISM -- It's a Kind of Religion," says New York magazine. "Those of us too young to have known JFK's Camelot are going to have our own giddy Camelot II to enrapture and entertain us," Kurt Andersen writes. The New York Post has already christened it "BAM-A-LOT." "Here we are," writes Salon's Rebecca Traister, "oohing and aahing over what they'll be wearing, and what they'll be eating, what kind of dog they'll be getting, what bedrooms they'll be living in, and what schools they'll be attending. It feels better than good to sniff and snurfle through the Obamas' tastes and habits. . . . Who knew we had in us the capacity to fall for this kind of idealized Americana again?" But aren't media people supposed to resist this kind of hyperventilating? "Obama is a figure, especially in pop culture, in a way that most new presidents are not," historian Michael Beschloss says. "Young people who may not be interested in the details of NAFTA or foreign policy just think Obama is cool, and they're interested in him. Being cool can really help a new president." So can a sense of optimism, reflected on USA Today's front page. "Poll: Hopes soaring for Obama, administration," the headline said, with 65 percent saying "the USA will be better off 4 years from now." But what happens when adulation gives way to the messy, incremental process of governing? When Obama has to confront a deep-rooted financial crisis, two wars and a political system whose default setting is gridlock? When he makes decisions that inevitably disappoint some of his boosters? "We're celebrating a moment as much as a man, I think," says Newsweek Editor Jon Meacham, whose new issue, out today, compares Obama to Lincoln. "Given our racial history, an hour or two of commemoration seems appropriate. But there is no doubt that the glow of the moment will fade, and I am sure the coverage will reflect that in due course." One of the few magazines to strike a skeptical tone is the London-based Economist, which endorsed Obama. "With such a victory come unreasonably great expectations," its lead editorial says. Web worship of Obama is nearly limitless. On YouTube alone, the Obama Girl song, "I've Got a Crush on Obama," has been viewed 11.7 million times. Even an unadorned video of the candidate's election night speech in Chicago has drawn 3.5 million views. I am not trying to diminish the sheer improbability of what this African American politician, a virtual unknown four years ago, has accomplished. Every one of us views his victory through a personal lens. I thought of growing up in a "Leave It to Beaver" era, when there were no blacks in leading television roles until Bill Cosby was tapped as the co-star of "I Spy" in 1965. When the Watts riots broke out that year, the Los Angeles Times sent an advertising salesman to cover it because the paper had no black reporters. The country has traveled light-years since then. It is hard to find a precedent in American history. Ronald Reagan was a marquee star because of his Hollywood career, but mainly among older voters, since he made his last movie 16 years before winning the White House in 1980. Jack Kennedy was a more formal figure after winning the 1960 election -- "trying to look older than he was, because he thought youth was a handicap in running for president," Beschloss says -- but quickly took on larger-than-life dimensions. "The Kennedy buildup goes on," James MacGregor Burns wrote in the New Republic in the spring of 1961. "The adjectives tumble over one another. He is not only the handsomest, the best-dressed, the most articulate, and graceful as a gazelle. He is omniscient; he swallows and digests whole books in minutes; he confounds experts with his superior knowledge of their field. He is omnipotent." Soon afterward, Kennedy blundered into the Bay of Pigs debacle. The media would be remiss if they didn't reflect the sense of unadulterated joy that greeted Obama's election, both here and around the world, and the pride even among those who opposed him. Newspapers were stunned and delighted at the voracious demand for post-election editions, prompting The Washington Post and other papers to print hundreds of thousands of extra copies and pocket the change. (When else have we felt so loved lately?) Demand for inaugural tickets has been unprecedented. Barack is suddenly a hot baby name. Record companies are releasing hip-hop songs, by the likes of Jay-Z and Will.I.Am, with such titles as "Pop Champagne for Barack." Consumers, the Los Angeles Times reports, are buying up "Obama-themed T-shirts, buttons, bobblehead dolls, coffee mugs, wine bottles, magnets, greeting cards, neon signs, mobile phones and framed art prints." A barrage of Obama-related books are in the works. Newsweek's quadrennial election volume is titled "A Long Time Coming: The Historic, Combative, Expensive and Inspiring 2008 Election and the Victory of Barack Obama." Publishers obviously see a bull market. MSNBC, which was accused of cheerleading for the Democratic nominee during the campaign, is running promos that say: "Barack Obama, America's 44th president. Watch as a leader renews America's promise." What are viewers to make of that? There is always a level of excitement when a new president is coming to town -- new aides to profile, new policies to dissect, new family members to follow. But can anyone imagine this kind of media frenzy if John McCain had managed to win? Obama's days of walking on water won't last indefinitely. His chroniclers will need a new story line. And sometime after Jan. 20, they will wade back into reality. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/11/16/AR2008111602374.html
|
|
|
| |
|
Admiralbill_gomec
|
Nov 17 2008, 10:42 AM
Post #45
|
UberAdmiral
- Posts:
- 26,022
- Group:
- Flag Officer
- Member
- #5
- Joined:
- August 26, 2003
|
I read the Kurtz article last night, shook my head in disgust, and walked away.
"Being cool can really help a new president."
Geez, Louise!
Also from the article, "Obama's days of walking on water won't last indefinitely." They will last as long as the media keeps worshiping him. After all, look at the behavior toward Clinton even during the disgrace of impeachment.
|
|
|
| |