« Institute of Justice | Main | Go East, All The Way Across the Ocean, Young Man » Thought of the Day23 Jul 2008 10:50 pm
Haven't we reached an odd moment in our history when the burgeoning consensus among the media is that one of Barack Obama's big problems is that he's too good at drawing big crowds? His vulnerability is that he's a charismatic guy who people want to see talk? It's a bit of a perverse perspective. Photo by Flickr user Wolfgang Staudt used under a Creative Commons license Comments (42)
That was a complaint from Hillary voters, as I recall. "Who wants a nominee who's popular, attracts a lot of support, has excellent rhetorical skills, and even gets pretty decent press? It's just not natural in a Democratic nominee..." They just didn't see how those skills might translate to any real stuff, like winning elections or producing coattails or putting together coalitions once in office. 
I just have to say, that picture is spectacular! And yes, it is very perverse, but nothing new.
It is all part of the current media consensus that voters don't like "elite" politicians (where "elite" doesn't include anything related to wealth, family, connections, or where Republicans (but not Democrats) went to school). But the media is, of course, stupid on this point. It is true people don't like politicians who seem out of touch with ordinary people and their problems. But an otherwise elite person who nonetheless also seems to have that connection with ordinary people actually has the perfect combination of attributes.
I just have to say, that picture is spectacular! And yes, it is very perverse, but nothing new.
Haven't we reached an odd moment in our history when the burgeoning consensus among the media is that one of Barack Obama's big problems is that he's too good at drawing big crowds? His vulnerability is that he's a charismatic guy who people want to see talk? This is only being trotted out because his opponent is none of these things. If I were a McCain supporter, I'd try to be spinning Obama's talents as negatives, too. For Republicans, what is Republican is good, and what is good is Republican. That which McCain has is good. That which he doesn't have is bad. Obama has talent that McCain doesn't have. Therefore, those talents of Obama's are good. Back in 2000 we were hearing about how being knowledgeable and smart were bad things. They were saying this because Gore had those things and Bush was running against him.
Yeah, it's a great picture. I wonder if it's been substantially photoshopped or anything.
Therefore, those talents of Obama's are good. Are bad, rather, from the Republican POV.
The media always have to find a way to criticize. To echo LBJ's line, if one day he was walking on water, the critics would complain that he couldn't swim.
typical MSM: heads Republicans win, tails Democrats lose.
I'm also enjoying the Bush crowd telling us that anything that any hint of a personality cult is unseemly and wrong. (Not that I think Obama supporters are cult-like. While there are certainly some starry-eyed exceptions, I think most Obama backers realize he's a flawed politician like any other, they just admire his very real political gifts and believe his communication skills and sound judgment give him great leadership potential.)
Hitler also was good at drawing big crowds. Hitler was a charismatic guy who people wanted to see talk. Creepy!
Here's my take: there's no better way to frustrate populism than to perpetually push the meme that anybody who can charismatically draw large crowds is secretly a psychopathic rabble-rouser exploiting the public. Then everybody who asks people to step beyond their normal and their complacency is by definition a potential threat. While some skepticism of such folks is intelligent, too much of it can lead to pointless conservatism and flabby political will to do anything of significance.
His vulnerability is that he's a charismatic guy who people want to see talk? Ah, but see, John McCain is a man who (in the words of Jon Chait) can be swayed by elite opinion... which is another way of saying that Obama is going against elite opinion and McCain is dumb so (in theory) he can sell elite opinion to the rubes. Obama is just too black not elite enough so anything to get rid of him. It's a shame TAC didn't see fit to put this article online: Meet the Establishment max
As a supporter of Clinton during the primaries I want to take issue with Deborah's characterization. The problem Clinton supporters had with Obama wasn't that he got good press and was charismatic, the problem we had with Obama is that in the general election all good press would end. We thought that the press should cover both candidates fairly so that voters could decide. Now I may or may not have been wrong to support Clinton, but I still think that campaigns should be covered fairly by the press, and I still think that being a great public speaker is not the only thing we want in a president. I support Obama in the general election not because he is a great speaker, but because I agree with him on issues and think he has good judgement.
Part of it is Americans are properly wary of the latest cultural phenomenon that hasn't really done much, yet commands mass adulation - and we usually find later they hadn't done much before mega-celebrity for good reasons... Before Black Messiah, there was Miley Cyrus. Who lept into public consciousness a year after Silky Pony, the Breck Boy (aka John Edwards, now busted in Beverley Hills with a skank) was the object of Obama-like swooning. Before that it was Bradgelina, which followed the start of the Paris Hilton Phenomenon. Before that, if you don't count Benj-lo, the world had it's nearest thing to Obamagasm with Monica popping her head out from under the Oval Office desk, Hillary's soap opera and the Obamalike mass-delerious crowds of liberal Jews, single women with no lives, and fags consumed in mordant rapture over the Princess Diana death cult. So the rock star rallies and near-worship of someone who reads speeches written for him beautifully but who lacks the experience to fully understand what he is orating, does make people profoundly uneasy.
When you look at some of the examples Bob Somerby has collected, then you realize there is no logic. Chris Matthews mocking as elite the act of ordering orange juice in a diner instead of coffee. Margaret Carlsen's remark: "You want to say, ‘Eat the doughnut,’ come on." Maureen Dowd's column "No Ice Cream, Senator?" There is no point that can't be turned into a criticism.
I'm also enjoying the Bush crowd telling us that anything that any hint of a personality cult is unseemly and wrong Rubbish. There never was a Bush cult of personality.
Obama and Miley Cyrus are both popular and draw big crowds. Creepy!
Matt, you can go ahead and call out Ross for making this argument, along with Howard Fineman (Joe Klein had a sort of meta-post up about this new meme earlier). This is just ridiculous. Let's look at what went down here:
Obama. Miley Cyrus. Cyrus Vance. Cyrus Vance fought in WWII. Hitler! It is all so clear to me now. Obama is Hitler, and was also in Footloose with Kevin Bacon.
Half of Ford's list weren't known as orators and the other half lost. Great history lesson, dipshit.
It's just possible that after 8 years of Bush that Americans might like a candidate who gets cheered in Europe. Perhaps we have PTSD from watching the chimp get re-elected, and it amkes it hard to hope that the nation may have progressed a bit and no longer wants a swaggering idiot for president. Here's hoping, anyway.
It's a bit of a perverse perspective. That's the right-wing media in a nutshell.
I like how you bury Hitler in that list of yours, chris ford. Clever. "...Hillary's soap opera and the Obamalike mass-delerious crowds of liberal Jews, single women with no lives, and fags consumed in mordant rapture over the Princess Diana death cult." There's so much to unpack and mock that I'll just leave that to the commenters below me. You're a man of many resentments. DU
Haven't we reached an odd moment in our history when the burgeoning consensus among the media is that one of Barack Obama's big problems is that he's too good at drawing big crowds? His vulnerability is that he's a charismatic guy who people want to see talk? It's a bit of a perverse perspective. It's just like being in high school / grade school again. You don't even have to be mean or snobby to kids who are dumber or uglier or meaner than you have people start trying to mess things up for you. You just have to be better than them, and if all else fails they'll try to accuse you of being better as if it's a crime.
Nothing against a US president who actually has the capability of speech and connects with Europe. The problem is, that nobody can answer how many troops and contractors will be left in Iraq to "protect our bases" and "engage in counterterrorism activities inside of Iraq" after Obama's "withdrawal". The problem is that Obama's plan sounds eerily similar to the strategy that has already been tried and failed: US troops hunker down in their bases only leaving them to conduct counterterrorism operations, which nevertheless undercuts the sovereignty of the Iraqi government, while Iraqi factions are free to conduct their civil war as long as they don't threaten the strategic interests of the US. Now, if you think that's a great plan, but if you are for a real withdrawal and full Iraqi sovereignty - well, then you are being played. And MY seems to be happy to play along. Don't get me wrong, I prefer Obama over both Clinton and McCain, but please, for the love of God, let's not fool ourselves here, he's just a lesser evil.
"His vulnerability is that he's a charismatic guy who people want to see talk?" No, the suggestion is that his vulnerability is that he's ONLY a charismatic guy who people want to see talk, and nothing more. That he's all sizzle, and no steak. Or at least he's coasting only on charisma, and in for some real problems when people realize that underneath that, the substance isn't to their liking. Wouldn't you be more confident of the outcome of this election if he was popular on the basis of his positions, rather than his ability to sound good while confusing people about them? Mind, the Republicans can only wish McCain was EVEN that...
Just as an aside, Matt's "Thought of the Day" posts tend to illustrate that on many days, it's his ONLY "thought of the day." Swan: "You just have to be better than them, and if all else fails they'll try to accuse you of being better as if it's a crime." This is called primate hierarchical behavior. As I like to put it, it is represented by this typical human reaction: "If you're right, then I'm wrong. And if I'm wrong, I'm dead - and that can't be allowed. Therefore I'm right and you're wrong - and I'll kill you if I have to to prove it." All humans believe that there is only so much "life" to go around, and therefore they have to pull down everybody "above" them and stomp on everybody "below" them, so they will have at least an equal chance, and preferably a better chance, to be noticed by "the gods" who dispense more life. It's a pre-rational response hardwired into most human brains. It's based on the fear of death, which is "the root of all evil."
I don't know, and really don't want to know, just what kind of decaying swamp matter is floating around in Chris Ford's mind to lead to a comment as hallucinogenic as that. But, credit where credit is due, after all -- it was deranged enough to make me laugh at the cray-zee.
The media's suspicion of Obama's charisma is the flip side of their belief that Bush is everyone's favorite beer drinking buddy. These people are profoundly clueless.
That's what we get for desiring a little old-fashioned skepticism from our uncurious press corps.
This paradox is why the suffocating media coverage around Obama's trip isn't necessarily a good thing. But the speech is bound to blow people away... http://www.political-buzz.com/
#1 Rovian tactic: attack your opponent's strength from your weakness.
William "The Bloody" Kristol (The Lesser) dispenses advice for Obama to follow in Germany today, via the Guardian newspaper of the UK.
Because if Obama fails to lecture the Germans on terrorism exactly as Kristol the Lesser suggests, it obviously means he iz moral kowrd & loves da terrists!
I just hope Obama finishes his speech off with "Goodbye from the world's biggest polluter!"
Two things: The media wants to be the authorities, and they feel powerless with the Barack phenomenon for some reason. They don't know what to do with it. They want to set the terms of the publicity. ANd they're pissed because the military did the press in the Middle East and they weren't allowed to. Also, they have nothing better to do. And to the guy who said Obama reads his speeches with a teleprompter and doesn't understand what he's saying -- are you kidding me? Are you that stupid? The guy is a million times more articulate than MCain, and last I watched, McCain is the one who reads his speeches from a teleprompter and doesn't understand them. GO watch a speech or two. Also, I hate to tell you, but Obama writes a lot of his speeches himself. Usually the better ones. He understands everything he says. Just cause you don't, don't assume he doesn't. People don't know what to do with brilliance, they don't know how to respond to it. THat includes members of the media.
I don't see this as a weakness myself, but I do admit that there's something a little unusual about seeing a politician speak before more than a couple of thousand people. It's just not something we're used to in the television age. More power to Obama if he can do it, though.
"Wouldn't you be more confident of the outcome of this election if he was popular on the basis of his positions, rather than his ability to sound good while confusing people about them?" Perhaps, but it doesn't work that way. Americans, by and large, don't elect their presidents on policy; otherwise, we'd be looking back fondly on the achievements of the Dukakis administration. That's why an ability to snow the public is a must. (And by the way, I'm not confused by Obama. Are you?)
Yeah, it's a great picture. I wonder if it's been substantially photoshopped or anything. yes, i'd say it has. it's most likely an example of HDR imaging: take a bunch of a pictures of the same subject at different exposures and let Photoshop stitch them together. that way, you can get highlights and shadows all exposed correctly, within the same image - which you often can't do in a single exposure.
Haven't we reached an odd moment in our history when the burgeoning consensus among the media is that one of Barack Obama's big problems is that he's too good at drawing big crowds? It is a bit odd. If you haven't already seen it, I wrote a joke post about Obama picking his running mate using this same theme: http://lowtechtimes.com/2008/06/26/barack-obama-selects-running-mate/
Comments closed August 06, 2008. |
Search
Subscribe to this blog by Email Books by Matthew Yglesias
Recent Comments
Recent Posts
Weekly Archives
Categories
|
Copyright © 2008 by The Atlantic Monthly Group. All rights reserved.
| 
Heads in the Sand
I think that the media is starting to understand R.J. Rosenberg's analysis over at TPM. Obama knows his shit. People are listening and liking the idea of a leader who is smart. Not just a great speaker, but smart.
Toxic on all levels for the media. They will be clowned by the Obama administration. Please make it happen sooner.
Posted by abject funk | July 23, 2008 10:59 PM