Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Why Obamamania? Because He Runs as The Great White Hope.

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU
 
BigBearJohn Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-14-08 05:21 AM
Original message
Why Obamamania? Because He Runs as The Great White Hope.
Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton's upset victory in the New Hampshire primary last week was every bit as impressive as Sen. Barack Obama's Iowa caucus breakout five days before -- if anything, more impressive, since his win was predicted and hers unforeseen. But the reactions to the two events couldn't have been more different. Obama's Jan. 3 triumph let loose a giddiness bordering on exhilaration among voters and, especially, media commentators, who hailed his triumph as "historic," even though he was not in fact the first African American to win a major presidential nominating contest. (Jesse Jackson won 13 primaries and caucuses in 1988.) By contrast, when Clinton overcame long odds to become the first woman in U.S. history to win a major-party primary, no leading news outlet trumpeted this landmark feat. Many failed to mention it at all.

This startling difference underscores one of Obama's advantages heading into the do-or-die Feb. 5th contests. "Obamamania" sputtered in the Granite State, but it is far from dead. Many of the voters and pundits who were thrilled by Obama's compelling Iowa speech 10 days ago remain intoxicated, heady with the hope that he can deliver not just "change" -- any candidate running would do that -- but a categorically different kind of change from Clinton or the Republican candidates. So what explains the magic?

The most obvious explanation is Obama's stirring oratory, with its notes of generational change and unity. The key to his seduction, though, resides not just in what he says but in what remains unsaid. It lies in the tacit offer -- a promise about overcoming America's shameful racial history -- that his particular candidacy offers to his enthusiasts, and to us all.

Obama's allure differs from the infatuations of past election cycles because it can't be traced to what he has done or will do. In his legislative career, Obama has produced few concrete policy changes, and you'd be hard-pressed to find a rank-and-file fan who can cite one. Not since 1896 -- when another rousing speechmaker, William Jennings Bryan, sought the White House -- has the zeal for a candidate corresponded so little to a record of hard accomplishment. But merely asking if Obama has done enough for us to expect he'd be a good president misses the point, because that measures the past rather than imagining the future.

SOURCE, WASHINGTON POST:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/01/11/AR2008011101414.html?hpid=opinionsbox1
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
Double T Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-14-08 05:59 AM
Response to Original message
1. Very succinct assessment of Obama.
Thank you for posting.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Angela Shelley Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-14-08 06:40 AM
Response to Original message
2. I hope I live to see the day
that an election will be held in the US and there will be no newspaper articles about race, gender or religious affiliation.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sandnsea Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-14-08 06:58 AM
Response to Original message
3. Well Edwards gave us the Patriot Act, IWR, NCLB
At least Obama didn't give us that.

He did give us ethics reform though. Did Edwards? Did Hillary?

He gave us the first step in transparency in government with grants and contract tracking. Did Edwards? Did Hillary?

What a stupid article. The only ones who don't know what the hell they're talking about are the journalists, per usual.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
H2O Man Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-14-08 07:01 AM
Response to Original message
4. It's too bad
that the Washington Post would run such a stupid headline. But I guess it is not surprising.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Thu May 02nd 2024, 07:50 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC