Thanks for posting this. I think Obama's approach to his campaign scares the hell out of a lot of establishment folks.  Frankly, it's like the 60's "Power to the People" mantra--it sounds good, but it requires TRUSTING the people to use that power in a way that doesn't threaten the powers that be.  The powers that be, can't and won't trust the people and will look to co-opt the mantra and halt the movement.  Just look at the Clintons' attempts to co-opt his message within their own.  

I thought this campaign would be different, but apparently I'm wrong. We've finally started devolving into psycho-babble (passing for analysis) that's sourced on DC pundits' opinions (not actual evidence). Thank god!

I know that I'm setting myself up to bear the wrath of the legion of Obamaphiles around here, but I actually was turned off by his Super Tuesday speech.  It's all beginning to seem like a cult of personality to me, and I'm getting a little tired of exhortatory rhetoric.  

Part of my reaction is probably due to the slavering and unseemly hatred of the anti-Hillary crowd, which I find off-putting, and my objection to the meme that we may as well move to Canada if she gets the nomination.  And maybe I'm just cynical.  But, while I do feel on some level that he may actually be the transformative figure we all would like to hope for, I also feel wary that the whole enterprise is naive.  I just don't see Kit Bond and John Cornyn suddenly abandoning their partisanship because Obama is in the White House.  Given that Obama has never faced a credible opponent in a major election, I find myself yearning for more than inspirational videos and rousing themes.

There is nothing novel in his  philosophical approach. It's at least 2000 year old  approach.

Yes, Obama approach to his campaign scares the hell out of a lot of normal folks, how are not looking for Obama's help in self-actualization.

Let me see If I get this, someone is seriously taking issue with Obama's contention that the citizens of a democracy have to be actively involved in it for it to function properly. You're freakin' kidding me right?

Klein must've realized that a politically engaged public wouldn't buy as much of his lazy brand of hack punditry,

I'm glad to see that I'm not the only one who gets vaguely creeped out by Obama's call-and-response gimmick when it goes on for too long.  Maybe it's just my latent Jewish paranoia, but a roomful of people all chanting slogans in unison as a charismatic leader eggs them on takes me into decidedly spooky territory.

No, "cult" is exactly the right word, and I think Obama supporters have to deal with the fact that some kinds of enthusiasm are not an unalloyed good in a democracy.  Some of the language I hear about people's expectations for Barack Obama (even when hedged, as it sometimes is, with the word "potential") goes well beyond anything any human being could really achieve.

And it's not like his campaign is doing anything to moderate expectations; to the contrary, that kind of thing is decried as "old politics" and "cynicism."  It's the kind of campaign that an insurgent almost has to run, of course -- "vote for me because I agree with you 2% more like you than Hillary Clinton does on a rate-the-candidates meter" is not much of a slogan -- but it carries a lot of dangers with it.  Especially if Obama finds himself in the position of having to convince all those True Believers to turn out in November and vote for the candidate he's been increasingly describing as part of the problem.

drdanny: Did you feel like one of the problems with the Super Tuesday speech was its length?  I didn't really start to turn around on it until the second half.

And lastly, did anybody else chuckle when Mitt Romney tried using call-and-reponse in his Super Tuesday speech?  Not only was it the dweebiest, least believable call-and-response on record, Romney couldn't even avoid stepping on his acolytes' cues when they tried to bring it off.  It'd be sad, really, if it wasn't so funny.

I think Obama has ridden the movement thing as far as he should go. I think there will be a backlash soon against the campaign he's running, especially since the race has now shifted away from the liberal enclaves of NY, Mass, and CA, and into the moderate midwest. When middle-class voters look at his core support and see young people, liberals, and blacks, they're going to get uncomfortable flashbacks to the 60s, and they'll turn away.

I think the solution is to hit hard on foreign policy in a forceful way, and do it before Hillary does. This will accomplish 3 things:

1. Show he's about more than hope and change, and can deliver a tough stance when needed. Remember, he has no foreign policy credentials and in a time of war, people want to know they'll be safe.

2. Show he can compete with McCain. It would be extremely risky to run against him on a straight anti-war message. People might not like the war, but they'll be afraid of someone pushing hard for withdrawal.

3. Win over the white male voters who are currently split between Obama and Clinton. These voters, especially in more moderate states, want a candidate that is tough.

come on, these are campaign speeches not policy proposals, virtually every political speech in history can be ripped apart in some fashion. "I have a Dream" oh you do, do you? How self referential. Or how about "Ask not what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country" sounds Communistic to me, the government exists to serve the people, not the other way around. Even Lincoln's speech at Gettysburg was nearly universally derided.

I understand the dangers of oratory, but Obama ain't Mao or Lenin, he ain't going to overthrow anything. Does anyone here doubt that compared to shrub he will be vastly better? Why can't people accept the fact that fine oratory is a mark of leadership ability, accept Obama has it in abundance, and then go from their to his policy proposals instead of good public speaker=danger to the republic.

"We are the one we are waiting for" is a great line Klein, swallow your jealousy at his gifts and admit it, you weenie.

I don't like the cultish aspects either, and I was never enthusiastic about the call-and-response, Oprah endorsements, and vague uplift he opens his speeches with (he gets to the good stuff in the second half, as was the case Tuesday night).

But I am supporting him for several reasons, in no particular order...

One: he was absolutely right on the war. You can't overestimate this, in my opinion. Clinton was wrong, and to this day, refuses to admit it was a mistake.

Two: Clinton...I don't particularly like her nor do I think she would make a strong candidate in the general. Obama has a demonstrable ability to appeal to the center and even some conservatives, besides which he pulls a lot of new people into the process. I think Clinton has mostly done well in the Senate and would like to see her stay there, becoming in effect a female Ted Kennedy, an elder stateswoman of the party and a great legislator. I think that role suits her; I don't think she's suited to be leader of a divided country, pulling people together to achieve common goals.

Three: I like his rhetoric of bipartisanship, and more importantly his record of same. He really is someone who conservatives are comfortable with BUT who doesn't seek bipartisanship for its own sake, using it instead as a tool to achieve important goals.

Four: Symbolic value. Not just the race, though I think that + his unusual name + his relative youth + his oratical gift makes him seem like a fresh and interesting face to the wider world which desperately needs its faith in America reaffirmed. The shock value of a black man with a Muslim-sounding man would be a huge shot of vitality for American PR. I am uncomfortable with this reason deciding my vote (it's more important we vote for Chief Executive than for Head of State), but consider it a reason I feel not just compelled by, but enthusiastic about, an Obama campaign.

Five: Thoughtfulness. Hillary has moved to the center and worked with people from other parties, but she appears calculating rather than thoughtful. I've yet to see her stand on principle or take a controversial stand the way Obama did with the war, with mandates (I know he's taken flack for this, but it would have been a lot easier with the Dem base and "progressive" Left if he'd just embraced the concept), or with the general gist of his campaign.

I think Obama & his supporters could make a great case for him on substantive grounds. Look, he's already captured the inspirational side of the coin. Nobody's threatening him there. But by highlighting his record and grounding himself - maybe starting the speech with substance and building up to the grandiloquence, he could start to move in on Hillary's territory. I've seen him do that in small ways - in the debates, with campaign ads, but have yet to see him do it in a big way. I think he may have to if he's going to win the nomination, which despite everything is still Clinton's to lose.

So put me down in the "anti-cult but pro-Obama" territory. I suspect there are others like me. And I hated that stupid "Yes we can" video, by the way.

austin, I don't know when it was that I stopped feeling the love.  It could be when my partner, who is supporting Clinton, got an annoyed look on his face and asked to change the channel.  But I've always liked Clinton more on substance, and I've been swayed a lot by the "feeling" I get with Obama.  When it wears off, I find myself irritated that I don't demand something more.  Part of my objection is that, in a nutshell, we're being asked to take it on faith that Obama will know what the hell he's doing when he gets into the White House.  It makes me a little nervous.  

I also probably began to get annoyed with the video, which has a lot to do with my revulsion at America's culture of celebrity.  (It might have helped if I had known who the hell those people in the video were.)  I don't care who the famous support.  Ditto America's youth.  I care a hell of a lot more who America's elderly supports.  Experience has shown us which demographic group actually makes it to the polls.

austin, why is it spooky? Do you feel afraid if you were to walk by a church and hear the minister shout "can I have an amen" and the audience cries "amen." Humans are hard wired for group think, do you mean to tell me you have never, in your whole life, shouted damn straight at something someone said? Or never participated in any group call and response? Granted, when you get older you get less inclined for it, but aren't campaign rallies the mostly province of the young? I had no problem with Mitt's "no, they haven't" fixed Washington refrain, beyond it is incredibly lame.

As to the danger you forsee, If Obama is such a spellbinder, and Obama supporters are robots, then following your logic, won't they do what they are told? You must be implying that is not the case so if Hillary wins isn't it her job to convince Obama supporters to support her, based on her own merits?

She is not entitled to my vote because of her political party. I am an American first, Democrat second. I will vote for the candidate whom I believe is best able to lead, and for me that ain't Hillary. I will vote for McCain over her.

aschindler,

I agree - an added benefit being that it would bring foreign policy back into the Democratic campaign, where it has been sorely lacking. Aside from being an essential, perhaps the essential issue, of this decade, you KNOW McCain will be all over it in the fall. So let's get a head start.

I love how you mention "one unfortunate column" without mentioning the author of said unfortunate column was James Kirchick.

Blackton, let me be clear.  I'm one of those very irritating "undecideds" right now.  I actually like them both, am proud of them both, would contribute to both of them, will campaign for either of them,  and will vote for one of them.  And Obama would (will?) be orders of magnitude better than Shrub.  (That being said, a developmentally delayed kindergartener with potty issues would do better than Shrub.)  But I want him to start being more concrete with the "how" of his presidency, not the "why."

An unfortunate column by James Kirchick? I'm just surprised he found time in his busy schedule of constantly hawking his (truly excellent) article on Ron Paul.

On to Klein: what's special about Obama is that when he says his campaign is about us, he means it. He is, and always has been, a small "d" democrat--see his community organizing, his conciliatory approach as president of the Harvard Law Review, his stint as executive director of that 1992 voter drive, or the Chicago Reader profile from 1995. And our Constitution, however abused, still begins with three words that establish sovereignty in America: "We the People". It is about us, and I'm sorry this strikes Klein as cultish. But people find politics degrading, sullying, and not without reason. Of course, apathy is a part of the story too. But the only times landmark liberal legislation has passed (1930s. 1960s) has been after landslide elections. Bush is one of the worst American presidents of all time, and has disgraced Republicanism. If we must be cautious now, we must be cautious always. Now is the time to play to win, not just not to lose. And this means getting people involved, awakening them to a sense of possibility about their own futures. Their dreams (our dreams) can come true, but only if we demand change. It is not enough to vote for Clinton and expect she'll maneuver adroitly.

drdannyu, the how for now is easy. A Democratic House and Senate will advance his health care agenda, and as CIC he can begin to withdraw out of Iraq at his own choosing, and with nothing the Republicans can do can stop him (they can't withdraw funds since afterwards there will be no funds to withdraw).

And, if the Republicans try to fillibuster everything, well they did put the nuclear option on the table first didn't they? Essentially, they cut out their own legs, and since they did I don't think they will filibuster as much.

Granted, the same logic applies to Hillary, just that her coattails will be smaller (in fact, it is possible that she can lose the house by losing big in the red states but ekeing out enough victories in the blue and purple to be elected) so for Hillary the How becomes bigger.

James Kirchik is 24?!

blackton,

I don't think the problem (for me, at least) is that we don't know "how." It's that Obama's not making the "how" case publicly. This can lead to two fears: one, that he himself isn't much interested in the "how", even if he's made provisions for it (I don't really share this fear), two, that he won't win over enough undecideds until he puts "how" or at least "what" front and center in his campaign (this is a fear I do share, based on anecdotal evidence. I know undecideds who broke for Hillary because they're comfortable with her and hadn't yet been sold on Obama in any specific way, which is what they're looking for).

Yes, the details are there on his website for those of us who want to look. But it's his responsibility to set the tone. I agree with aschindler and feel Obama has rode the "inspiration train" as far as he can. It doesn't need a conductor anymore, it will continue on its way under its own steam - he should focus on what are perceived to be his weaker areas now.

Blackton, In response to your question, "austin, why is it spooky?"  I think you might have missed the earlier phrase in the sentence "latent Jewish paranoia."  So yes, Austin might very well be "afraid if [he] were to walk by a church and hear the minister shout "can I have an amen" and the audience cries "amen,"" and for good reason.  Humans may very well be hard wired for group think, but a great many of them seem also hard wired to do violence to Jews.

1. This sounds less like a "backlash" trend and more like a series of stories and blog posts that these journalists have been sitting on for a while, waiting for a lull in the Obamamentum.

2. Can we please be a smidgen even-handed here and acknowledge -- per the now-infamous NY NOW email -- that both campaigns may engender a little detrimental hyperfervor and that this should not reflect poorly on the candidates or even their organizations?

3. I find all of this "cult" talk as demeaning, patronizing, and frankly inflammatory as Hillary supporters find the "shrill" and "entitled" critique. A lot of my students at Berkeley are ardent Obama supporters, and would seem to be the prime demographic for this sort of lemming mentality. But when I talk with them individually after class, it's clear to me that even after losing their voice from screaming at an Obama rally, they would not follow him to the ends of the Earth. Most respect Hillary Clinton, and many are forthcoming about policies of hers they prefer (health care is the most common one mentioned) and doubts about him that linger (electability and the leadership strength to end the war in Iraq). So there's a lot less Kool-Aid being chugged than I think some of you portray. If Obama were to betray his supporters, I couldn't begin to fathom the wrath he'd receive in return.

Bottom line: rallies are rallies people. Hillary Clinton has them too, if you didn't know (and for the record, I found her Potemkin talk show on the Hallmark Channel at least as disturbing as many of you have found Obama's style of campaigning). Obviously, that approach is not everyone's cup-of-tea, and insofar as Obama's public image is defined by his success at working a crowd, I respect that this will not be enough to convince all, or even most, voters to get on the Obama bandwagon. That said, it's more than a little perverse to PUNISH the man because he's clearly more of a political talent than she is.

4. Whatever he is now, there's no question that before Iowa, Barack Obama was the underdog. And, let's remember, an underdog with virtually the same policy positions as his opponent. "No mandates" alone does not a viable presidential run support.

So let's stop pretending that one campaign is about issues and the other about personality. BOTH campaigns are about them: her experience and tenacity, his political acumen and freshness. What ELSE could they be about? Again, they agree on virtually everything, other than health care and the 2002 vote on Iraq, with not coincidentally are the issues that have gotten the most coverage in this primary, deservedly so.

In brief, what CharlesFosterKane said.

blackton: It's spooky because politics are about the real world, and religion/rock 'n roll/high school pep rallies are not.  I have no problem with somebody who wants to turn off their ego and their critical faculty for two hours at a rock concert, and happily do so myself when I get the opportunity.  (Clutch is playing at the Metro on 2/26, in fact, and I've already secured the next day off work because my throat will be hoarse from screaming.)

Politics is different.  It demands skepticism and pragmatism and criticism and all those other -isms that make people who aren't aware of the stakes think politics is boring.  There is a word for a person who prioritizes an emotional appeal over an intellectual one: huckster.  And since I think Barack Obama definitely has the qualities to win voters with an intellectual appeal, to see him turning increasingly toward the role of huckster bothers me.  Like drdanny, I want to hear him demonstrate an ability to *win* arguments with people who disagree with him -- not just charm his way past them.  I guarantee you that the next president will need that ability.

Lastly, regarding your "if Obama supporters are such robots, won't they obediently pivot and vote for Hillary if he tells them to?" point -- no, they're not robots.  But a non-trivial number of them, it seems to me, are essentially children when it comes to political realities.  And children who have been told that it's OK to be children, to believe in the impossible and hope for the miraculous and forget about all those tired, fusty "ordinary" politicians because Our Time Is Now, are not likely to adjust well to their chosen messiah telling them to get out there and support somebody he has explicitly linked with the hateful status quo.

By choosing to cast his campaign as a "movement", Obama may be jeopardizing his ability to act as a "mere politician" if that turns out to be necessary.  "Forget everything I said about Hillary Clinton being part of the problem, and go vote for her"?  How many of those people shouting "YES WE CAN!" on cue are going to be ready to hear that message?  When you've promised them a ticket to Paradise, how many people are willing to accept Sheboygan as an alternate destination?

Hillary may not be very inspiring, but she's run the more responsible campaign in terms of positioning for the general election: she can endorse her opponent if necessary, because her characterization of him as "a roll of the dice" is easily walked back.  ("During the course of this campaign, my opponent has convinced me, as he has so many of you, that he can lead America.  He will be ready on Day 1.")  Obama has laid a big, big bet on this primary -- and if his bubble pops, the echoes will resound throughout the Democratic electorate.  Because his campaign has gone out of its way to make a Clinton-led ticket seem unpalatable, and positioned himself, Obi-wan Kenobi-like, as our only hope.

That's a bad place for Democrats to be in if he should lose the nomination.

Hey could someone who was there at the time (I wasn't), talk about what it might have been like to either be a part of, or an outside observer to, either JFK's or RFK's campaigns?  I know that they motivated the young, had all sorts of youthful energy, not as much experience as their competitors.  How do they stack up to the Obama campaign now?

What Citizen K said, also (to a milder degree) what austin said. My initial distaste for Obama was the way he deliberately injected religiosity, religious tropes and rituals-- specifically, the kind of evangelical holy roller stuff that I find ludicrous-- into a ** Democratic ** campaign. You expect this from Falwell-era Repubs, but it's really offensive coming from someone on our side. To me anyway.

That said, Obama's a clever guy, and I have to think that this injection was strategic. By shifting wherever possible to uplift, hope, call-and-response mode etc, he achieves several things:

1) by getting media coverage of himself as religious, he shuts race out of the equation. Those who are most inclined to racism, or race-solidarity, tend to also be the most religious, and many of them share the same baptist- holy roller religion. Casual viewers and readers don't say, "Look, Madge, a black man"; rather, "Hey look, a Democrat who likes religion"

2) non-rational, tent revival meetings shift the emphasis away from his inexperience and play up his charisma, the fresh face, energy hope etc.

3) the more talk there is of hope and faith and love, the less talk there is of policy details-- advantage, Obama.

Whether this was by design or accident, it's working brilliantly. Again, I find it really distasteful-- you couldn't pay me enough to go to one of these tent revivals and make an ass of myself like that-- but hey, the White House is worth a tent revival.

Provided, of course, that there's real substance beneath the snake-handling...

The problem is that for Obama and Hillary the "how" will be exactly the same.  But Obama uses rhetoric that implies that, somehow, with him it will be different.  I am buying this less and less.  Look at what happened to the stimulus bill.  It went down in the Senate (with a Democratic majority) because of chump change tossed at Democratic priorities.  Obama is campaigning on the hope that he will be able to rise above this kind of partisanship, and Hillary is saying that she knows how to combat it.  At the end of the day, I find her more believable.  If it weren't for that bullshit before and after South Carolina, I would still be in Hillary's camp.

Careful, austinexpat: you sound like you're winding up to blame Barack Obama if Hillary Clinton loses the general election. It's at least as plausible that he's motivated a whole slew of otherwise-apathetic voters to follow and get involved in politics, and that now that they're plugged in, they'll end giving Hillary-the-Democratic-Nominee a concrete boost in support that she otherwise wouldn't have received had Obama not run at all. They're not just invested in him, after all, they're now invested in the whole process.

If she loses to John McCain (I don't think she would, and absent any more race baiting or unseemly campaigning I would vote for her in the general guilt-free), it will be because she was the one unable to inspire, unable to win arguments, and unable to persuade. I should point out too that I doubt Hillary's ability to win such arguments as much as you doubt Obama's. Hillary strikes me as well-practiced-bordering-on-slick when it comes to policy discussions, possessing a fluent grasp of talking points that works brilliantly among Democrats who agree in principle with her underlying philosophy. I fear that this advantage, though, will hit a brick wall when faced with general election voters whose opinions on the role of government have been colored more by Ronald Reagan than Michael Dukakis.

mjmckay, I wasn't there for JFK, but my dad was.  He is no fan of Obama's, largely because he thinks the comparison to JFK is apt, and thinks that JFK made some pretty big rookie blunders, mainly related to foreign policy.

Joe Klein spewing garbage?  Who would have guessed.  "Let's see if we can piss people off by comparing him to Jesus."  

As for the rest of you:  "I can't believe someone would follow a politician enough to chant for them."  What about the chanters at the Clinton rallies?

And what can a presidential candidate promise while campaigning?  A president cannot get the stuff he mentions in the State of the Union address.  How do you buy "I am going to pass Universal Healthcare by myself.  I will sit in every seat in congress and vote."

DrDan

"Obama is campaigning on the hope that he will be able to rise above this kind of partisanship, and Hillary is saying that she knows how to combat it."

When, exactly, has she won?  Standing up on flag-burning?  The war? Health-care?  I don't know when she has won, except maybe, maybe against a border-line retarded Rick Lazio.  She is a shrewd politician, sure, and she will fight- but fighting without winning is meaningless and ugly.

Tep,

Do you think he's taken the revival tent schtick as far as it can go, though? I don't think he's going to win any more converts that way, and it's time for him to reach out to those who are a bit more hard-headed but (unlike me) neither instinctively anti-Clinton nor aware of Obama' specific policies or history (I did see a great ad on the eve of Super Tuesday laying out an extensive career resume for him). What's your take on the matter?

Dr. Dan,

Speaking for myself, I'm convinced Hillary knows all about partisanship, not at all convinced she can overcome it. Why does losing to the Right in the past ensure she will be able to combat it effectively in the future?

As for Prim,

"Hillary strikes me as well-practiced-bordering-on-slick when it comes to policy discussions, possessing a fluent grasp of talking points that works brilliantly among Democrats who agree in principle with her underlying philosophy. I fear that this advantage, though, will hit a brick wall when faced with general election voters whose opinions on the role of government have been colored more by Ronald Reagan than Michael Dukakis."

Bingo. She speaks really well to Democrats which is why she's neck-in-neck with Obama at this point. But here "Mommy candidate" persona will not necessarily go over well in the general.

And while we're knocking Obama for his call-and-response revival tent style, let's not absolve Clinton of any similar weaknesses. Did anyone see Colbert last night? "Lady in the Yellow Suit '08 Clap Clap Point Point." Brilliant!

I think that both of them come into the race with essentially the same problem, which is that both of them have been in the Senate for a very short period of time with an incompetent corporate puppet in the White House and a hyperpartisan GOP Congress perfectly willing to shoot down anything the Democrats put forward.  So, what has she won?  Not a whole hell of a lot.  Neither has he, unless I have missed something, which is entirely possible.  BUT, if either of them is going to get anything done, it is going to be hard.  The same culture of obstructionism will still exist on the HIll, and Harry Reid (bless his poor, blinkered soul) will still be the jaw-droppingly inept majority leader.  I don't see any of Obama's rhetoric translating into a different means of governing, and I wonder if he really believes the lines he's delivering.  If, at the end of the day, it's all just in the service of winning the White House, then bravo!  (Said from the heart of my cynical soul.)  But if he truly believes that those people across the aisle are going to work any more easily with him than they will with Hillary, then I'm afraid he's naive.  I don't think it's going to happen.

Citizen K - he hasn't spoken in tongues (yet). Seriously, I think the man and his team need to get all over the problem they have with hispanics, and figure out how to flatten it, because McCain will run strong and hard among same, esp in the battleground southwestern states.

Remember, W got s.t. like 42% of the hispanic vote in 2000. If McCain does this well-- and it's likely he could do even better, given Obama's poor performance with them vs HRC-- we're screwed. We absolutely have to win either FL or CO + NM, and you can't do that as a Dem without winning 60% or more of the hispanic vote.

I think I've agreed with austinexpat twice in two days. Scary.

Primwallflow: No, rest assured I would cheerfully blame the voters if Hillary fails to win the general election. ;)

But I don't think we're at a point of no return yet in the primary.  With the news that elected delegates by themselves are almost certainly not going to decide the issue, I think the pressure may be off both candidates to make this look like a zero-sum game.  A dialing-down of the rhetoric -- or even better, a transferring of that "status quo" anger to the GOP, where it belongs -- will probably serve all Democrats better.

Doc- OK, you are right- Obama hasn't won much either (unless you count IL legislation, where he passed a very tough bill that was tough on cops- not an easy thing to do).  But Hill has a history of losing and compromising.  Her style clearly does not work.  And don't believe they will have an equally hard time reaching across party lines.  People who disagree with Barack tend to like him; it is not the same with Hillary.   For whatever reason, people don't like her.  That will lead to inevitble stagnation and fighting.  

Dr. Dan,

Obama's and Hillary's "Hows" are very much not the same. They are polar opposites. And he has addressed this repeatedly, using her health care disaster as an example of how not to get your agenda passed. And that is her m.o., the closed door, the circled wagons against the vwrc, the "some of us are right and some of us are wrong" mentality that echoes our fearless, shameless current leader's style. It's a style that not only doesn't win people to your side to get things done, but, when it succeeds despite the opposition, actually tends to make the WRONG decisions, because it does not listen to other people. That is one big fat take-home nugget of the movie "No End in Sight". Which, if you saw, you might remember the prominence in it of Samantha Power, who is an Obama advisor. Not to change the subject.

And, while I share your frustration that Obama isn't getting detailed enough, and is letting Hillary get away with portraying herself as the one with the plans, that is a strategic decision, and has nothing to do with whether or not he does have plans, does have experience, will be ready on day one, etc. I mean, that's a big difference.

If you want a fat slab of reassuring substance, read this endorsement from Hilzoy, who is about the wonkiest blogger you could find:

obsidianwings.blogs.com/.../obama-actually.html

I've sort of let myself veer a bit far from the point that, back in the ether, I think I might have been trying to make.  For me, one lone, politically obsessed voter, the rhetoric is getting tired.  I've gotten on the bandwagon!  Woo, hoo!  Now, tell me your plans.

Maybe this isn't how he will win.  Probably not, frankly.  He seems to be motivating people to consider him who otherwise would not consider either engaging in the process, or supporting a Democrat.  And I can't tell you how many things I would have changed about Hillary's campaign, had I been in charge, for they are myriad.  (I would have started by being frank, humble and keeping the tone up, but clearly that didn't come to pass.)  But part of me wonders how long all of the lofty talk will last after the GOP shoots down a perfectly good bit of policy just because it furthers Democratic goals.

And, finally, I should just admit that part of my disenchantment with Obama is actually anger at how his supporters (particularly on TNR) talk about Hillary.  I think she is a good Senator.  I like the policy that she would enact, given her chance at the White House.  God help me, I kind of think I would like her if I met her.  (She reminds me of my last boss, and has similar qualities, both good and bad, that I had to get used to.)  And people are acting as though it would be the worst thing for the country if she got the nomination.  Maybe she won't win, though I think she can.  But, considering the buffoon that escorted McCain to the CPAC thing today, considering that he would seek Sam Brownback's advice re: the Supreme Court, and considering that universal health care won't come anywhere near his desk if he is elected, I don't understand why otherwise liberal people would consider supporting McCain over Hillary, and it's making me tetchy.

drdanny, Democrats control Congress, and if the Republican Senators endlessly filibuster the nuclear option will be deployed and I would love to see the Republican Senators who a few years before supported it try to rationalize their way out of it. Both can pass their agendas. Yeesh. The problem though is not the Republicans but the economy. The money simply won't be there, so compromises will have to be made. Universal Health Care, fine in principle but if the unemployment rate shoots up and revenues plummet, that will be the first to go. You can't raise taxes in a recession.

Austin: I don't dispute your points, what I am saying is that was a campaign speech, I love Bono's work with the poor, but if I go to a U2 concert I don't want to hear about that, I want that good time feeling.

The funny thing for me is though, and I have to be honest, I like both McCain and Obama, so if Obama does win the nomination I will be happy with whoever wins. (more happy with Obama)

I think the US is heading for a storm and I don't think Hillary is a person who will be able to do a good job. Honestly, I think she will be a disaster. If we were coming out of a recession, then I say go for her, but not going into one. She doesn't inspire confidence, and during bad times you need a leader who does.

Its being asserted that religion isn't about reality.  You couldn't be more wrong.  Religions isn't about pie in the sky, its about bread on the table.  Its not about the hereafter, its about the here and now.  Those who refuse to grasp this can't grasp the importance of religion.

Yea, I'd prefer a Democratic president who believes in the American demos.  Call me crazy, but the old patron/client form of "liberalism" ain't liberal.  And, as many a good conservatives know, its not about the government and what it can do for us, it is about us.  This is why Obama can unite liberals and conservatives, because he believes in democracy first.

Nuts to the backlash.  We finally have a candidate who inspires people to stupid-level enthusiasm, and who can win those critical swing states, and people are complaining that this is creepy?  This is a debate only the Democratic Party could have.

I am a Jew, so i think I can say that the Jew above who thinks that Obama getting a room full of people of every race, gender, and age group to say "yes we can' to unity is fascistic is just the kind of Jew who has chosen as the leader of the liberal party in this country people like Dukakis.  We don't need your paranoia and your inability to make even gross distinctions.

Separately, Hillary has attempted call and response herself -- and just fails at it.  Go back and look at the Jefferson-Jackson dinner in Des Moines.  One candidate tried call and response -- Hillary.

What Klein et al are complaining about is someone who is succeeding in motivating people, but not about going to war or scapegoating a minority group.  There's nothing creepy about that at all.  

Slow down with your bullying, LDuncan, you're not going to convince many people. Certainly not me - I am a Jew who lived in Ceausescu's Romania. I too, like austinexpat, I'm more than freaked out by the personality cult aspects of Obama's candidacy. I also dislike Obama's lack of specific message and I don't give a shit on charisma.

Aside from Ceausescu and his personality cult, I've seen charisma in the US in Reagan and W. Bush, two incompetent dolts - the first a believer in astrology, the second a rich daddy's imbecile boy. Charisma is what you show when you lack in substance (and when you pander to the press who will always rather comment on your hairstyle and clothes than on policy issues).

I do like Hillary, even though I'm not enamored of her. But I'd like a US president to be intelligent, competent and strong - not someone to have a crush on. The elections are for a president, not a lover. Get it?

Let Obama show more where he stands in terms of positions instead of that inspirational personality-cult bullshit, all about himself.

It's probably too late to jump in here, but anyway. If we could put on John Rawls' "Veil of Ignorance" and design a candidate without regard to the actual people on offer, the candidate would be a lot like Obama, not just his biography and policies, but also his ability to give stirring speeches and bring new voters (Democratic voters at that) into the process. And this is what excites us and scares us at the same time; being an inspirational figure is both a blessing and a curse. He's either too good to be true (which is the same as "false"), playing on our emotions to cover up for a lack of substance, or he's about as good as anyone could be without being too good to be true. It's kind of like being the "New Dylan" in the 60's or 70's - the label imposes expectations that are impossible to meet, and provides an easy hook to diminish an otherwise good musician.

Thank God we're the reality-based party - as the discussion here shows, there are plenty of people who either support, lean toward or don't support Obama who are giving him plenty of scrutiny and doing their best to evaluate him objectively. (BTW - forming one's opinions in reaction to the perceived stupid opinions of others is not being objective, it's one of the less attractive variants of subjectivity.)

At the proverbial end of the day the two questions about Obama and Hillary are (a) can he/she get elected and (b) can he/she govern? We can make educated guesses, but we can't know until the votes are counted and the governing begins (just ask Tom Brady about how even the most educated guesses can be wrong). What we do know is that both candidates have staked out much clearer positions on the policies they'll try to enact than any Dem candidate we've had in the last 30 years, due mostly to the lengthy primary season, and the fact that Edwards put forward a healthcare plan, forcing Hillary and Obama to follow suiit. The policies are virtually identical, and clearly reflect the values of the Democratic Wing of the Democratic Party (which is an apt description of basically the entire Democratic electorate in this election - we're all Democrats now).

What we also know is that both Hillary and Obama will govern as far to the left (maybe even as liberal as Nixon, maybe even  more so!) as they think they can based on the composition of Congress and whatever mandate comes out of the election, but will keep an eye on the center to make sure \they don't lose support from Dem moderates and Republican centrists. We know this because it is the essence of "Clintonism" (for better and for worse) and it is an explicit part of Obama's mantra.

Jake Tapper, like Richard Cohen and George Stephanopoulos, are the cultists. In his book "All Too Human", Stephanopoulos refers to himself as a "true true believer" in Bill Clinton. Two trues. And Joe Klein is turning into Walter Lippmann, portentous and irrelevant.

Technically, a cult or sect is a community of dissidents, with a self-appointed leader. Rush Limbaugh is the perfect example, as is Hannity. They are anti-collaboration and anti-compromise. Men like Obama are exactly the opposite. They earn their leadership the hard way, by winning votes.

Bill Clinton has made an odd journey, doing the hard work of becoming a legitimate leader in a democracy, by winning elections, to becoming something of a cult figure since leaving office. As has Al Gore. I think Clinton's ugly behavior, or the fact that his behavior strikes everyone as ugly, is that he's acting like some sort of self-designated prophet, a leader of Clintonites, who own the Democratic Party. Remember "inevitability"?

drdan ... if you don't see the Clinton supporters as engaged in some sort of cult of personality, then you aren't really looking.  (Of course, really at the level of a presidential race, what candidate doesn't have some level of cult of personality among his or her supporters?)

The idea that there's something "spooky" about the enthusiasm of Obama's supporters is baffling to me, as is the allegation that he's leading a substance-free personality cult based on pure charisma. The comparison to Ceausescu isn't even worthy of refutation. Get a little perspective.

Obama has a detailed platform, and while he's somewhat less nuts-and-bolts than Hillary, he's certainly not vague or fuzzy-headed. I saw him in person, and he gave a knowledgeable answer to a question about the nurse shortage, of all things (to give but one example). He's at least as smart as Hillary, who is obviously very bright herself. This is clear not only from his academic and professional record (magna cum laude at HLS, etc.), but from his work as a legislator and his performance in interviews, speeches, public forums, and debates.

Would Obama really be a much more impressive candidate if he'd been running for office since he turned 30, or supporting a spouse who did the same? Is it really true that working as a community organizer is less valuable experience than being a partner at a law firm or serving as first lady, or that the only worthwhile legislative experience is in the federal government? I'm skeptical. The only area where I tend to think Obama could stand to have more experience is foreign policy, which is one reason that I'd love to see him run with Joe Biden. And I'm not convinced that Hillary has the huge edge on foreign policy that her supporters seem to think she does.

Charisma can be dangerous, but only when it masks underlying weakness or something darker. Although there seems to be an insinuation here that Obama might secretly represent other than what he says he does, nobody has actually produced any evidence supporting such a conclusion, and the argument that he lacks substance is uncompelling, for reasons I've just mentioned. I see nothing wrong with charisma in service of noble ends. Assuming you're a Democrat, would you rather have your position represented by someone divisive or someone convincing?

Obama is a uniquely great candidate. That's why people like him. There's nothing weird or creepy about it. I don't think he's perfect -- I'd particularly like to hear more from him on national defense / homeland security issues, and I'm to his right on immigration -- but he's thoughtful, tough, and respectful of his intellectual opponents. Most appealing of all, he represents optimism. It's a very attractive package, particularly to young people. But I guess if you worry a multi-ethnic group of kids in Chicago chanting "yes, we can" with reference to a moderate, liberal, reformist political agenda might be the first little goose step on the road to dictatorship, I can't expect you to get it.

Hillary has two anti-Obama themes:  Lack of experience and lack of policy detail.  

In other words she is saying we don't what he wants to do and, in any event, how he would accomplish it whatever it may be.

I think it is time for him to put forth a message to challenge her two themes.  Maybe ads and commercials with the content and title "Experience that has Produced Results" and "A Blueprint for the Future."

Any thoughts?

Sleepyavi, I don't disagree that oftentimes a charismatic leader will lack substance, or, worse, will have substance but that substance is a very dark force -- a Hitler or a Ceauciescu.  But it is a horrible mistake to overgeneralize and to assume that it is impossible to have smarts and substance and charisma and have all of these traits directed toward a good end, toward ends that are the exact opposite of fascism.

The mistake would be especially great in the limited context we are now debating in;  Hillary v. Obama.

Hillary has tried, painfully hard, to bring inspiration to her campaign.  Her standard close to her stump speech for months was a naked appeal at emotionalism.  She'd tell the story of a ninety year old woman who came up to her and said she'd never think that she would go from not being able to vote to living to see the first president that shared her chromosomes.  This part of her speech elicited raucous applause.  Does that scare you, Sleepavi or austin?  If not why not?

I think if you look hard enough at this problem you will see that you are inclined toward Hillary for what I am sure are good and sufficient reasons, but you are reaching to rationalize your decision by attempting to demonize what is a virtue in Obama and what Hillary has reached for but failed to achieve.

Others have spoken to Sleepyavi's sense that Obama has no substance or is an empty suit.  It's been refuted by others well.  I've seen Obama speak at town hall events, and answer questions with a dizzying array of substance; he knows, for example, precisely what professions have shortages; precisely where the US armed forced actually need additional strength and where the military budget should be increased; and any number of such facts.  Indeed, if you go back to his calling card -- his early war opposition and fast forward past his October 2002 speech to a November 2002 interview with an Illiniois Public Television journalist, you will see that, even before he was in the US Senate and responsible for knowing such things, he effortlessly rattled off the problems that might occur post-invasion among "Sunni, the Shiites and the Kurds."   Bush did not know there were these three factions until 2003, according to Woodward.  So the facile comparisons of Obama to Bush or to Ceauciescu just don't work.

I detect disappointment among reasonable Hillary supporters that large swaths of the American public are swooning for a politician who represents the mirror image of the values of fascism.  As if only fascism and not liberalism can generate real enthusiasm among crowds.  If you're right, I'm checking out of politics for good and focusing on literature or music.

I'm receptive to Obama's undeniable charisma in service against the corporate-evangelical cult of W, but what seals the deal with my technocratic soul is the Obama campaign's steady record of intelligent decision-making. They motivate *and* manage a populist movement (whose limits are granted).

As evidence of that ability to manage the 'motion, Obama's audience for his Super Tuesday speech was ready for far more call-and-response than he indulged. The group behind him fairly bounced on their seats, like fans at a basketball game. God bless their enthusiasm, but it boded a potentially dangerous moment. The Obama campaign had gone the distance to tie a set of elections and caucuses in which they had seriously trailed less than a month before. Given this steady winning of ground and the youngish Obama's need to maintain gravitas, it seemed important not to over-celebrate.

Again Obama and his writers / advisors made a good decision. He honestly indulged the crowd with a few call-and-response chants but kept them brief and spaced. When the crowd wanted to go ecstatic, he would calm them by making them follow his line of thought. His concluding "yes we can" chant was climactic but not extended--that funny Stevie Wonder song came on almost immediately to announce the show was over and everyone needed to wake up for work tomorrow.

So far this campaign's combination of charismatic populism and technocratic competence hasn't significantly slipped. My nearest analogue is the 92 Clinton campaign when, despite many more collisions and eruptions, the intelligence of the candidate and his stellar staff seemed always to be playing at least one move ahead of the others. My heart bows gratefully to the cultish warmth of the Obama phenom, but the campaign's brainy management of its gifts is what sustains my hope.

Cultlike devotion is certainly not new in politics. The responses here show exactly what many of us are talking about - endless slobbering over how wonderful Obama is, how smart he is, how inspiring he is, etc., etc., etc. - and barely a word on anything he might actually DO. As with Clinton, his supposedly encyclopedic knowledge is touted to show how *brilliant* he is, but again - what is he going to DO if he's elected? Besides, of course, turning tail and running out of Iraq as fast as his little liberal legs will take him.

What are you complaing about? Can't you tell Obama is God? See me, feel me, touch me, heal me. He is among us!!!

Under the 'this is probably too late" category - it's not too much to ask for Obama to convey details of his agenda at a level everyone can take in, not just those willing to look around a little.  The time has come for him to do that.  

Yes, I'm an Obama kool-aider of the first order, but even I know that of he's going to implement his agenda-through-building-a-movement plan, he'll need to create and successfully market the bullet points of that agenda to *everyone."  

Americans likes him, they admire him and they want to trust him - but we've also been burned and traumatized and we're fed up.  Build some sand under those castles Senator!  

About this: "Besides, of course, turning tail and running out of Iraq as fast as his little liberal legs will take him."

You'll have to talk to the American people about this mladenson, 75% of them want out ASAP.  You're a vet or ready to sign up someone in your family as well as yourself, right?

____________________________________________________________________________

First, the strategic reasons for voting for Obama over Hillary:

1. Hillary is hated--and it's a deep, visceral, uncompromising hatred--by millions upon millions of voters within the GOP base, as well as millions upon millions of independents (not to mention, the hatred many lefties have for her, antiwar lefties, anti-establishment lefties, anti-lobbyist lefties).

2. If HRC is the Dem nominee, it will light a fire under the GOP's collective ass, rally its base big time, with bucks and volunteers and voters voting en masse.

3. If Obama is the Dem nominee, the GOP will not have as easy a time of it, getting donations, getting volunteers, and getting the vote out. Especially with McCain at the top of the ticket (please see item #4 below). There is no deep-seated conservative hatred for Obama. Indeed, there have already been flattering pieces about BHO in the conservative press, from this week's National Review to Peggy Noonan's article in the WSJ. And in states with open primaries, Obama has already received numerous votes from Republicans.

4. As has already been demonstrated, John M has trouble with his own base--social conservatives, fiscal (tax hawk) conservatives, wacky (but numerous) evangelicals--they all seem to be cool at best to McCain (at worst they openly revile him: he was booed this past week at CPAC), but these are precisely the kind of Republicans who would be DRIVEN to vote for him and volunteer for him and give money to him: in order to defeat Hillary. Take Hillary out of the equation, and the right-wing enthusiasm for McCain shrivels.

______________________________________________________________________________

Now, the substantive reasons for voting for Obama over Hillary (or McCain, for that matter):

1. HRC failed the single most important test of her tenure in the Senate: the vote on the Joint Resolution.

2. Hillary is beholden to lobbyists in a way that BHO is not.

3. The sleaze factor surrounding HRC's fundraising efforts--and those of her husband--is unforgivably high (for more on this, please see: www.tnr.com/.../story.html).

4. McCain's support for the adventure in Iraq (from Joint Resolution to surge) is an abomination. Indeed, in this regard, he has his nose so far up Bush's ass that he should be able (as they say) to taste the Brylcreem.

5. Obama's accomplishments in the Illinois State Senate are impressive, particularly the bill he played a major role in passing (35-0) to check police torture by requiring the videotaping of all interrogations (making Illinois the first state to require such videotaping). He also played a major role in passing the state's first earned-income tax credit (on behalf of the working poor) and its first ethics and campaign finance law in 25 years ("one of the best in the nation on campaign finance disclosure," according to the Post). Then in the US Senate, he co-authored a new lobbying reform law, requiring lawmakers to disclose the names of lobbyists who bundle contributions for them, and played a major role in passing what the WP called "the strongest ethics legislation to emerge from Congress yet." There are other examples (for more, please see: obsidianwings.blogs.com/.../obama-actually.html), and then there is also the fact of his opposition to the war from the very beginning.

6. Obama is clearly the most articulate (and brilliant) orator now active in American politics.

7. Is there a cult, or quasi-cult, that has sprung up around BHO? Yes. Are the cultist worthy of brutal, unflinching satire? Yes. Is virtually everything that Oprah says a joke, including her reasons for supporting Barack? Yes. Is the youtube video, "Yes We Can"-- starring, among others Scarlett Johansson--a parody of itself (to see the video: youtube.com/watch)? Yes. Are these reasons enough to abandon the candidacy of the most engaging, electable (albeit imperfect) candidate the Dem party has produced in years? No.

_____________________________________________________________________________

All of which is to say, I'll take Obama, sans the kool aid, thank you.

When I talk of Obama' lack of substance, I can give a specific example. It pertains to science, which has been very hardly hit under George W. Bush.

Hillary has very specific plans of what to do about it, including the doubling of the budget for NIH (which funds biomedical research) and similar increases in the budget of the NSF (which funds most other fields research). In contrast, Obama has a few lines which say strictly nothing beyond slogans.

I chose science as an example because I know what I am talking about and I am a scientist at a top US research university. US is losing every year some of the science edge it had over its major competitors - the European Union and Japan. It is clear that Hillary cares about it and has planned specific steps to remedy the situation. By contrast, Obama's program is much too vague.

Seriously, even W. Bush says he supports science, even as he drastically cut the budget of research in all fieds. You ca see it in research universities - hiring has slowed down, research groups have gotten significantly smaller because there's no salary money.

There's no technological power without strong research. Lots of US presidents have understood that and acted accordingly in the past - Republicans like Eisenhower and Bush-father, Democrats like Johnson and Clinton.  In contrast, some of these repulsive charismatic and messianic types have done only harm - Democrats like Carter, and most of all republicans like Reagan and George w. Bush.

Perhaps you don't care about the scientific edge of the US. I do, and I'm not even an American citizen. That is because without very strong basic research there's no technological edge and no health edge - both of which are essential for the defense edge of a country. The world needs a strong US, because if hard times come there will be no one else for defense.

Hillary has understood these things and knows what to do. Obama has a inspirational rhetoric. May he lose the nomination.

When I talk of Obama' lack of substance, I can give a specific example. It pertains to science, which has been very hardly hit under George W. Bush.

Hillary has very specific plans of what to do about it, including the doubling of the budget for NIH (which funds biomedical research) and similar increases in the budget of the NSF (which funds most other fields research). In contrast, Obama has a few lines which say strictly nothing beyond slogans.

I chose science as an example because I know what I am talking about and I am a scientist at a top US research university. US is losing every year some of the science edge it had over its major competitors - the European Union and Japan. It is clear that Hillary cares about it and has planned specific steps to remedy the situation. By contrast, Obama's program is much too vague.

Seriously, even W. Bush says he supports science, even as he drastically cut the budget of research in all fieds. You ca see it in research universities - hiring has slowed down, research groups have gotten significantly smaller because there's no salary money.

There's no technological power without strong research. Lots of US presidents have understood that and acted accordingly in the past - Republicans like Eisenhower and Bush-father, Democrats like Johnson and Clinton.  In contrast, some of these repulsive charismatic and messianic types have done only harm - Democrats like Carter, and most of all republicans like Reagan and George w. Bush.

Perhaps you don't care about the scientific edge of the US. I do, and I'm not even an American citizen. That is because without very strong basic research there's no technological edge and no health edge - both of which are essential for the defense edge of a country. The world needs a strong US, because if hard times come there will be no one else for defense.

Hillary has understood these things and knows what to do. Obama has a inspirational rhetoric. May he lose the nomination.