Below story in Washington Post about Obama kind of says it all. Wonder how they" decide who the empty suits dreamy candidates are vs. candidates of established "substance"? Of course, the other examples that they use in this story were Howard Dean and Wesley Clark....and in fact I remember when the media did similar stories on them back in 2003.
Interesting how Obama is quickly starting to suffers from overexposure (media orchestrated, IMO), while Edwards receives consistent low key media buzz that could easily last a year, meantime Hillary's chilling for now as they are letting her rest (thank goodness!).
This article is not meant to be a compliment to Sen. Obama, that's for sure! This article is meant to shame folks away from wanting to support Sen. Obama. The media ain't slick! Such arrogant Assholes!
The Dreamy Candidate With the Swoon Vote
It is sometimes called a bubble or a boomlet or a bandwagon. A new political figure arrives on the national stage and audiences swoon. Suddenly, mysteriously, and without anybody knowing much about him, he is The One, the next hot thing, eclipsing all other presidential wannabes.
(Until he isn't anymore.)
This bubble is not love -- as anyone who was ever 15 years old can testify. This bubble is infatuation. Political infatuation. Presidential contenders can be the subject of crushes just as surely as that new kid in high school, and in both cases it's what you don't know about the person that forms much of the appeal.
Speaking of which, there's this transfer student we've been eyeing in Miss Fischer's P.E. class. Name's Barack or something. Big dark eyes, great cheekbones. From Illinois. Don't know much about him, but, boy, is he dreamy.
* * *
When Sen. Barack Obama descended on New Hampshire earlier this week, the crowds were rapturous. The Illinois Democrat was compared to JFK and Elvis, and one woman told Slate, "I'm not comparing him to Jesus Christ, but . . . " All of this necessitated some comment from Obama about what he calls the "hype" surrounding him. snip This was a statement at once self-deprecating and astute, pointing to a potential source of trouble for the senator should he heed the calls of many panting Democrats and run for president. Because the truth is, Obama, like many objects of political desire before him (including Howard Dean and Wesley Clark) is in great part beloved for what people imagine about him, rather than what they know.
1. This is part of the build'em up to tear'em down
reporting that constantly goes on. It's really the time of year for slow news cycles and nothing much is happening for the political reporters right now to report on. Congress is in recess, Mr. Bush will be off on vacation and besides the Sen Johnson's Health watch.... they have nothing to do beyond the "let's start the 2008 race". Best to ignore the fluff and negative fluff reporting. I hope the field for 2008 is huge, there are lots of debates and interviews, lots of ideas from everyone running and let the chips fall where they may.
7. They HAVE the power to do good and report the truth, they just decided they WON'T
and don't care what anyone thinks except their corporate paymasters.
All you needed to see was in the lack of coverage of the two dozen CIA analysts who reported in Oct 2002 to KnightRidder reporters that Bush's WH was cooking the intel books on Iraq, and how the media ignored that report and refused to discuss it on any of the news channels or in the major papers NYT, WP, Trib, or LA Times.
Then the uniform ignoring of the Downing Street Memos which took many of us constantly barraging the media for about 2 weeks before it began to get any mention after the original KnightRidder article.
The corporate media is NOT interested in truth or informing the citizens of important issues.
20. I remember his dad! Good looking guy too! Both had much talent, apart from
how they looked!
And yeah....I cried when they were looking for JFK jr. that fateful day and the days after. That was almost as tragic in a way as was his father's death for this nation. It robbed us of our future each time....with all of the Kennedys early demise....which is why, IMO, we always seem to be in quest of that Kennediesk candidate....which I think is part of our fascination with "good looking" politician to some degree. We project a want to return to that short period in our history that was called Camelot. It will take us an eternity to understand that its not coming back....but it is a hard thought to accept.
"Don't let it be forgot, that once there was a spot, for one brief shining moment, that was known as Camelot"
5. Surprise there's no mention of voters who were taken in by Bush's "cowboy" persona
Or is it only Democrats who develop irrational crushes on candidates--you know, all those women and gay men.
Real men look at the candidates objectively and then vote on the guy with whom they'd most like to have a beer. Great.
Dean and Clark are candidates (well in Dean's case were candidates) who had a considerable amount of substance but had not mastered the art and deceptions of the modern media campaign. Listen to either in a long interview and you're bound to come away impressed. Bush of course is a fake through and through from the rent-a-ranch to the Texas twang to his born again piousness in a guy who seldom sets foot in church.
Obama seems to have the media thing down pat and is clearly and intelligent, thoughtful man. He appeals to a pretty broad range of voters on the "crush" level. He's pretty much eye candy appealing to women and a significant portion of the male population and his NFL gig showed a guy with whom any red blooded American guy would want to hang out in a sports bar.
It will be interesting to see if it's enough and if he can withstand the shit storm that is coming his way.
Although I don't find Obama to be as gorgeous as popularily reported (this coming from one who's ethnic identification is the same as his). If one of my daughters brought him home, I would be much more impressed with his education and his accomplishments than I would be with his looks. It's not to say that he isn't a nice looking fellow, but I don't believe that this the overwhelming factor contributing to his popularity (more likely his comportment and his oratory powers are)--and I have seen many more gorgeous men in my life than Barack Obama. He does have quite a bit of charisma, which is not solely due to "his looks".
So considering that beauty is in the eye of the beholder, I simply find that the way the media is going about this makes them the ones making it more about Obama's looks than voters would have done otherwise. No one really said the same thing about John Edwards (in 2004 or now), and if any Democratic contender has the more stereotypical drop dead handsome look as defined by our society, it is John Edwards, not Barack Obama....and so the press "could" make the same case as to why John Edwards has a lot of supporters (but they choose not to). Which is why I wonder how they decide exactly which of the Democratic contenders Democrats' are suppositely drooling over...while leaving as you mentioned some obvious politician matinee idols alone on this topic; Mitt Romney for one.
8. Now, I realize that the article is not so much about Obama's looks as the fact that
he is "shiny and new". But let us be clear that it is the media who have generated the hype in the last couple of months. Now, the media acts amused that folks are supporting Obama. They are indeed inferring that he is an "empty suit" in this article, and if that is the case, than all that is left is an outward shell to look at. But much more damaging is the way the article implies that Obama's supporters are nothing more than political groupies jumping aboard a moving bandwagon while experiencing heart palpitations.
So the article is not so much about "looks" as it is about how the media is now attempting to shame those who for whatever reason are considering supporting Barack Obama. That's what I dislike; how "they" want to suddently start discouraging what they initially encouraged.
Some here might say that the media doesn't work in concert....and with those, I will respectfully disagree. Call me a conspiracy theorist if you must.
12. I wrote a letter to the author of the piece and we've been having some
back and forth chit chat. She's trying to tell me that the media is just getting their points from voters, strategists, and insiders although the media might be making more noise than required. I told here in nicer words, Horsehit.....the media is dripping this stuff down to the masses and then saying they heard it from them. I also mentioned to here that once they've got the horserace where they want it, they'll start going to work to tear it all apart. Mentioned that I was tired of feeling manipulated by the media when it comes to our electoral process, and I, for one wish to have the Fairness doctrine re-instated pronto. She didn't comment on that one. Anyways, thus far she's sent me 3 email reponses....but I think that I have had enough of her, as I believe that I have made my point. We are on good terms though...since you never know when you might need a "Presstitute" friend.
The media is trying to be the arbiter of what the public is to accept politically. This type of drivel is written from an old media viewpoint and lacks perspective. The political viability of Obama will become fair game upon an announcement. WaPo is also receiving whispers from certain members of the Gang of 500 who have different agendas and input from those with vested interests elsewhere.
Dean transitioned into the head of the DNC without the gang of 500. Clark retained a viable and strong source of support from his campaign that positions him to run again and be so strongly sought during the 2006 mid-terms. That type of nuance destroys the objective of the piece about Obama by implying Obama too will not be the nominee. IMO, there is a great deal of Obama envy now and just wait until the Oscars roll around, the Gore envy will be present as well.
The media is decrying their lack of influence and are currying favor with the inside the beltway types because a new approach would be too painful for such creatures of boring habits.
13. The Obama infatuation reminds me of Kerry infatuation in 2004 Iowa
When Howard Dean and rep Gephardt and sen Edwards were set aside simply because every one was infatuated by Kerry's "war experience". IMHO John Edwards was the strongest candidate in 2004 but had no "war" experience.
Now we have a total unknown, Barack Hussein Obama. Almost no one knows much about him. But everyone is infatuated because he is a great speech deliverer. How shallow! Let the nomination fight begin, let the aspirants debate the isuues on TV, and then we can decide who we will vote for.
21. Whoops! Forgot that freedom of speech precludes me from ever bringing
Edited on Fri Dec-15-06 08:48 PM by FrenchieCat
Edwards name up--cause an Edwards fan/thread watcher might get offended!
(Advice: grow up and grow thick skin like I did long ago--You will need it in the upcoming months )
while we have you here coming into the thread like the police, why don't you also go and spank Fuzzyball and read him the riot act of obessesive behavior for slamming Kerry? In fact, why don't you just start policing and rebuking anyone who "slams" any potential candidate?
If one dares to have a different opinion from yours, what is that? a misdemeanor or a felony?
build up your candidate, don't trash fellow Dems. The Calif Gov race was a disaster. Arnold used a Dem's( Westley) negative primary campaign against the winner(Angelides). He destroyed one Dem using the words of another. It was easy. Severe lack of discipline IMO. Although Frenchie gave a legit point on Edwards she neglected to point out that Edwards was man enough to admit his vote was a mistake.
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.