NY Times: Obama's campaign "seems to teeter on becoming a cult of personality"

[bidenista]

Obama's campaign's behavior raises eyebrows at the New York Times:

Editorial
Divided They Run
Published: February 6, 2008

...Having run on the idea of broad participation across society’s divisions, Mr. Obama’s campaign often seems to teeter on becoming a cult of personality — a feeling that the candidate and those around him do nothing to dispel. In an interview with ABC’s “Good Morning America,” on Monday, Mr. Obama’s wife, Michelle, was asked if she would work to support Mrs. Clinton if she won. “I’d have to think about that,” she replied.

Mrs. Obama quickly got back on her talking points, stressing party unity. But her unguarded answer was similar to what we heard from Obama supporters in e-mail messages that we received after endorsing Mrs. Clinton. Many of those readers said they would not bother to vote if Mr. Obama lost the nomination. That is not the way democracy is supposed to work....

More: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/06/opinion/06wed1.html?b...

[Name removed]

1. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Bluebear]

3. ...

[journalist3072]

2. Wow..just wow. The article says it all. eom

[CoffeeCat]

166. Dear "journalist"...it's an editorial...

...not an article.

It's opinion.

[Proud2BAmurkin]

4. Wow.

[Danger Mouse]

5. Oh come on.

[BlackVelvet04]

9. ironic considering your member name n/t

[Danger Mouse]

27. How many times do I have to tell people that I am NOT A SCIENTOLOGIST??

The name is a play on words in mockery of scientology, which i personally despise.

[BlackVelvet04]

40. First time I've seen the issue come up. n/t

[Danger Mouse]

52. It's not the first time it's happened to me...

especially since people tend to use it as an attack.
I think you'd be VERY hard pressed to find a real scientologist on DU.

[BlackVelvet04]

Well, Hubbard is considered by most people to bit pretty

much a flake. Although, he did write some pretty good science fiction books.

[Danger Mouse]

65. He wasn't a flake.

He was a tyrannical megalomaniac who founded his own religion specifically for the purposes of making money, which he did in spades. He began to believe his own hype and unraveled even further than he already had.
He was quite an evil human being.

[BlackVelvet04]

66. Did you read his science fiction books?

They would have made great movies for stoners.

[Danger Mouse]

69. I read some of Battlefield Earth.

I got it as a gag gift from my roomate in college. It made an excellent prop to keep my window open because it was nice and thick.

[BlackVelvet04]

71. I can't remember the name of the ones I read....

it was a series and very strange. Not bad if you like science fiction. It's not my genre, so I'm not sure why I read them.

[Danger Mouse]

74. i might have to check them out.

l. ron's life itself was purely bizarre.
he was a twisted person...

[BlackVelvet04]

75. It shows in his science fiction....

you have to be twisted to think of some of the shit he came up with.

[stickernation]

160. so very funny

i read ALL of them, i think i was in junior high. totally inane, sort of like an even cheezier ayn rand. he had a gift for writing action scenes though. oh man was that stuff weird.

[DS1]

106. The Mission Earth series?

I got to about book 6 before putting it down.

It had the "Apparatus" which was like a super-CIA

[Zhade]

94. Trust me, no, they wouldn't (and didn't).

NT!

[Terran]

158. Ugh, no he didn't. They're crap. n/t

[rodeodance]

117. you know Sacramento Bee and UK had recent articles?--

[rodeodance]

119. COME TO OBAMA! "Obama volunteers... share personal conversion stories"

Forum Name General Discussion: Primaries
Topic subject COME TO OBAMA! "Obama volunteers... share personal conversion stories"
Topic URL http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph...
4445389, COME TO OBAMA! "Obama volunteers... share personal conversion stories"
Posted by bidenista on Wed Feb-06-08 06:23 PM

Not a cult. Nuh-uh. Definitely not:

Obama basic training
Volunteers told to share personal conversion stories with voters - not policy views.
By John Hill

In a storefront on Q Street in Sacramento, Kim Mack told a crowd that spilled out onto the sidewalk how she came to back Barack Obama. With a son serving in the Iraq war, which she opposed, Mack was looking for a like-minded presidential candidate. She was impressed by the Illinois senator's books. But the clincher came on March 17, when she met the Democratic contender face to face. She describes how he lit up the room with his wide smile, shook her hand and thanked her for volunteering.

"He looked at me, and the look in his eyes was worth 1,000 words," said Mack, now a regional field organizer. Obama hugged her and whispered something in her ear – she was so thrilled she doesn't remember what it was.

Then Mack brought home the point of her story for the crowd of 100 or so eager volunteers, sipping coffee and watching a PowerPoint presentation in the Obama campaign office on a recent Saturday.

"Did that make more impact on you than if I had talked about his health care plan or his stance on the environment?" she asked.

On the verge of a hectic few weeks leading to Super Tuesday, the crucial Feb. 5 multistate primary including California's, Mack wanted to drill home one of the campaign's key strategies: telling potential voters personal stories of political conversion. She urged volunteers to hone their own stories of how they came to Obama – something they could compress into 30 seconds on the phone.

"Work on that, refine that, say it in the mirror," she said. "Get it down."...

More: http://www.sacbee.com/111/story/649427.html


This story rates 5 out of 5 on the Little Kool-Aid Dude scale:



----

Edited to add:

Even some Obama supporters are horrified. Over at TPM:

Excuse me, but this sounds more like a cult than a political campaign. The language used here is the language of evangelical Christianity – the Obama volunteers speak of "coming to Obama" in the same way born-again Christians talk about "coming to Jesus."

But he's not Jesus! He's not going to magically enable us to transcend the bitter partisanship that is tearing this country apart. And even if he is elected, in no way will that show that somehow we have "gotten beyond" race.

The Obama campaign's instruction to their volunteers to steer clear of policy questions. How can we truly bring about real political change if the movement the Obama people are building is devoid of ideological content, content merely to mouth gauzy generalities about "coming together" and "yes we can"? Such a movement becomes a cult or personality rather than engine for social justice and political transformation. And personality cults can be a huge turnoff to those who are not already drinking the Kool-Aid.

More: http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/2008/02/05/barack_...

[ProSense]

6. "Mrs. Clinton fired the first divisive shots of this campaign, and we have said before"

Brutal!

[rodeodance]

126. "Mrs. Obama quickly got back on her talking points, stressing party unity.|

Funny



Having run on the idea of broad participation across society’s divisions, Mr. Obama’s campaign often seems to teeter on becoming a cult of personality — a feeling that the candidate and those around him do nothing to dispel. In an interview with ABC’s “Good Morning America,” on Monday, Mr. Obama’s wife, Michelle, was asked if she would work to support Mrs. Clinton if she won. “I’d have to think about that,” she replied.

Mrs. Obama quickly got back on her talking points, stressing party unity. But her unguarded answer was similar to what we heard from Obama supporters in e-mail messages that we received after endorsing Mrs. Clinton. Many of those readers said they would not bother to vote if Mr. Obama lost the nomination. That is not the way democracy is supposed to work.

[Andromeda]

155. After Hillary wins,

you will have to go through deprograming.

[alcibiades_mystery]

7. Since the NY Times editorial board has already endorsed Clinton

It's not surprising that they would start peddling the most vicious and condescending of the Clinton talking points.

Can any one say "platitude."

Better yet, can anyone involved or in support of the Clinton campaign NOT say the word "platitude" for 12 hours? Is it even possible anymore?

[rug]

13. How about hokum?

[alcibiades_mystery]

37. I include the 1,001 variations on the theme

[RuleOfNah]

109. Doesn't Bush subsist on a cult?

I don't recall the NYT underlining sad fact that aggressively.

Oh, didn't the NYT help Bush invade via propaganda and collusion? Never mind.

[nolabels]

122. Actually that would be the people who work for MSM............

It would be their belief that public opinion is mono and it's THEIR job to decide what that definition of mono is

[kerry-is-my-prez]

139. Yep - that NY Times is just an agent of Hillary Clinton. They just do her bidding.

[BlackVelvet04]

8. It quit

teetering and went over the edge a while ago.

"Any candidate, and any party, presuming to unite this country must first unite their own."

no kidding.

[REDFISHBLUEFISH]

10. A divider THEN a Uniter Obama the Great? Nah, been there done that Dubya speak!

[BlackVelvet04]

18. I'm glad this is finally getting some attention.....

obviously it's not just us noticing.

[emilyg]

138. It's not just us noticing.

[Faygo Kid]

11. Hillbots grow ever more desperate.

This is just sad.

[girl gone mad]

30. It isn't just Hillbots who can see this.

I'll probably be voting for Obama, but his actions, his campaign and his wife's words have been much less than inspirational.

[rodeodance]

125. there you go again with the use of deperate!--Why not get in touch with obama to INSPIRE you

to come up with a new word??

[Skittles]

141. exhibit number one

you cannot even see it's not just "HILLBOTS" who see this sickness

[Straight Shooter]

12. The edge of the mudslide begins to creep toward Barack and his followers.

This is The New York Times, which of course endorsed Hillary. You can bet they were waiting for their window of opportunity to maximize the impact of this article. After Super Tuesday, everyone wants to know what's the deal with the phenomenal Barack Obama and how the force of his personality is used to influence susceptible believers.

Well, done, NYT. Nothing like pulling back the curtain and revealing the chicanery.

[sfam]

14. Why is it a surprise to people that when Barack brings in a whole new group of supporters that...

They don't act like Democratic party regulars??? Like, why do you think all these people have entered the democratic party process??? Because of the great old democratic party name? Bullshit. They are there for the Barack campaign...they are NOT there first and foremost for the democratic party. If Barack is out, why on earth would you think all of these new folks to the process would go for Hillary?

Now the rest of the supporters who ARE normal democratic voters will of course be voting for Hillary. I don't get the shock and amazement here....

[Straight Shooter]

17. Well, that explains the 14 pages of "I've got a crush on Obama" products on one cafepress site.

Fourteen pages. That seems a little obsessive. Or maybe it's just good old-fashioned American greed.

[earthlover]

172. Well....we have had to put up with Hillary Herd members talking about the "Goddess of Peace"....

So there are cultists right here on DU. Part of the HERD.

Goddess of Peace my arse.

[Straight Shooter]

174. Well, I don't use that moniker "Goddess of Peace" for Hillary.

Nor do I have any idea where it started.

Get it right: It's the Thundering Hillary Herd.

[nolabels]

134. Call them what you want but it's seems their trajectory will be taking the establishment out of.....

the equation. The larger piece of the puzzle is the disenfranchised and they are starting to flex their numbers with real muscle

[mistertrickster]

164. Damn right. It's a lot of the old-line DEMS who don't want to lose control,

nevermind that what they're "losing control of" is a periennially LOSING party unable to fight back against vicious partisan attack.

Obama threatens the ideologues on both sides.

[NoBorders]

15. "Mrs. Clinton fired the first divisive shots of this campaign"

You forgot this part:

Mrs. Clinton fired the first divisive shots of this campaign, and we have said before that if she is the nominee she will have to stretch herself to connect with Mr. Obama’s supporters. Many of the most passionate of them are getting involved in politics for the first time.

[Dogmudgeon]

16. I hope you also posted the Sac'to Bee story

It sounds like the "... of personality" part may not even be necessary.

--p!

[Unsane]

19. People who dislike Obama, dislike the very heart of America.

[Proud2BAmurkin]

21. wow

[sfam]

22. No worries...they WILL be assimilated....

*queues Borg music*

[Straight Shooter]

25. Did Obama tell you to say that, or did you make it up all by yourself?

Because at this point, it's really hard to tell the difference.

[sfam]

33. Oh, I think you can still tell the difference...nt

[Straight Shooter]

60. I can, indeed. Can they?

n/t

[SaveOurDemocracy]

U dropped your 'I' n/t

hmmmmmmm ...

[Donnachaidh]

48. it's getting DEEP in here

wow -- I'll have to remember to put my hipwaders on. What remarkably repuke-like rhetoric!

[jsamuel]

82. you realize one of the elements of a cult of personality is that the country and the leader become

indistinguishable.

[Zynx]

83. So if I don't support him, I'm un-American? That's very...Republican of you.

[Silent3]

93. Um... you were supposed to be trying to convince us...

...that Obama ISN'T leading a cult with remark?

"People who dislike Obama, dislike the very heart of America."

I'll give some, maybe even most, Obama supporters more credit than that, but with comments like that gem, you sure as hell aren't helping your cause.

[indigoblue]

114. This is the idea Obama promotes

I've seen him discouraging his supporters not to vote for Hilary Clinton if he doesn't get the nomination.

He is not a real democrat!

[rodeodance]

127. going of the deep edge I can see!!

[Andromeda]

156. Give me a frickin' break!

Geeze, Louise, can't you come up with something better than that.

[TAGGLINES]

162. SCHMUCK...!!!

The Very Heart??? Ahhh hahahahahaha

My God...he's all hat and no cattle. He talks the good talk...but has yet to explain just how all these "CHANGES" are going to transpire.

[RestoreGore]

171. Really? The you're either with us or against us ultimatum?

Where have we seen this before?

[gravity]

20. The NY Times hates Obama

Ha

[Wombatzu]

23. definitely an unfair advantage...

having a personality.

[woolldog]

77. yes, it is

[VolcanoJen]

24. And sharing that very same valuable Op/Ed real estate today...

... was one of Maureen Dowd's most vile efforts, an utter hitpiece on our candidates, which if you haven't read yet, you really should. All relevant links within the link below:

http://digbysblog.blogspot.com/2008/02/scrubbing-mauree...

Just because it's printed on the hallowed pages of the New York Times Op/Ed section does not make it so. We all know there's been a lot of hot air blowing through those hallways for many, many a year now.

[DemGa]

26. Obama...touched me

Something about his last speech, I think it even topped the one before. The voice, the cadence...I feel all tingly.

[sfam]

28. Wew! Was afraid this was a sexual harrassment post!!!

Just kidding.

[rug]

41. He's just a man

http://youtube.com/watch?v=s4c4JC4zGM0&feature=related

[BattyDem]

29. "Many of those readers said ... "

"they would not bother to vote if Mr. Obama lost the nomination. That is not the way democracy is supposed to work."


Um ... that's EXACTLY the way democracy is supposed to work. A person does not have to vote for the party's nominee if they don't want to.

Did it ever occur to the NYT that Obama is bringing a lot of new voters to the party and there is a REASON these people haven't gotten involved before? For them, it is about supporting a person they believe in. They don't care about a political party so they're not going to "fall in line" if their candidate doesn't get the nomination.

[mistertrickster]

165. Mega dittos. Who said that we have to vote party line because it's convenient for the status quo nt

[Bluebear]

31. 'I turned to her & said "He just shook hands with Barack," to which she responded."Hey, give it up!

"You shook his hand didn't you?" Happily the guy said "Yes." I then said, "give me some of that" and the guy shook my hand with the same hand he had just clasped with Barack's. A woman friend of mine who was standing next to me saw me shake hands with the guy. I turned to her and said "He just shook hands with Barack," to which she responded..."Hey, give it up." We then shook hands. She then turned to the person next to her and shook hands. This chain of hand shakes went on for about five or six more persons...

I call this hand-shake scenario the "BAM" because, descriptively, it takes a bit of Obama's name and it's the sound of a collision, of People Coming Together!

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph...

[hulklogan]

80. Every time I read this I have to...

[rodeodance]

121. PLEASE-touchme--heal me

[workinclasszero]

32. Piss off NYT

Where the hell does the NYT get off telling me how I should vote??

[Bluebear]

35. Did you post the same in all the Obama endorsement threads?

[Samantha]

34. Ah, but that IS the way Democracy is supposed to work

It's just not the way partisan politics works.

One has the right to abstain from voting, simply as a no-preference or as a protest vote, but in so doing should forfeit the right to complain about the results of the election.

Dems who see Hillary Clinton as simply too conservative in her past "posturing" who choose not to vote for her, protesting her failure to distinguish herself from the Republican candidate, are absolutely embracing their Democratic right to abstain from voting.

Give that writer a civics lesson before he editorializes for the NYT and influences the thinking of many young American readers.

[BattyDem]

43. Exactly.

The writer has no concept of what democracy is.

Did it ever occur to the NYT that some people simply don't like Clinton? I know several people who voted for Obama, but have already said they will stay home if Clinton gets the nomination. They are not activists and they haven't donated time or money to Obama's campaign. They have no "emotional" attachment to the man - they are just voters.

While it may not be wise to stay home because of the impact a Republican president would have on the Supreme Court, it is certainly their right to do so. That doesn't mean they're caught up in a cult of personality, it just means that they really don't like one of the candidates ... and one of the perks in living in a democracy is that they don't have to vote for that person if they don't want to.

I have no problem with the NYT endorsing the candidate of their choice, nor do I have a problem with them criticizing Obama's voting record or his stand on the issues ... but this kind editorial is an embarrassment to them.

[Samantha]

46. It truly is an embarrassment to them n/t

[JAbuchan08]

147. good post

n/t

[OzarkDem]

36. Obama believes in divide and conquer - GOP style

His action speak much louder than words.

[JAbuchan08]

148. If Hillary can't inspire unity

isn't she just as divisive?

[AX10]

38. "Perhaps I should Just Join The Cult"

http://commentisfree.guardian.co.uk/jeff_jarvis/2008/02...

[rodeodance]

124. Yes, this story has crossed the great pond.

[kurth]

39. If this thing doesn't pan out, Michelle and Barack can open their multizillion-dollar

Church of Obama and build a Hope-Change-Believe compound for themselves and their followers.

[Eric J in MN]

42. The Michelle Obama reference is misleading.

She was asked a strangely worded question, and wasn't sure how to answer.

A reporter asked Michelle Obama, "Could you see yourself, working to support Hillary Clinton, should she get the nomination?"

The question isn't even in idiomatic English.

"working to support" -Huh?

Did the reporter mean, "working to get people to support..."?

Was she asking if Michelle Obama would ask for an official job with the Clinton campaign if Clinton got the nomination? Was she asking if Michelle Obama would encourage her friends to vote for Hillary Clinton?

[nonconformist]

44. Yeah, ok. nt

[Bluebear]

49. Big stretch. Why didn't she say "could you clarify?"

[Eric J in MN]

56. Michelle Obama may have thought at first the she understood the question as whether..

...she would accept an official job with the Hillary Clinton campaign, and seconds later realized that the interviewer may have meant something else.

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

54. Nice try, but needs work.

[K Gardner]

45. Yes, this really makes good sense. Tens of millions of Americans are UNDER HIS SPELL.. can you

hear the twilight zone music?

What this is IS a carefully crafted Rovian meme.. and democrats are eating it up. Go Hillary !

[nonconformist]

47. You know, for a bunch of people chanting "yes we can!"...

This really all seems to be about OBAMA. Not the country, not the issues, not the supporters... Obama. He proved it when he said that his supporters won't vote for Hillary but hers will vote for him.

[bidenista]

51. nailed. nt

[sfam]

55. Lets try this again...I explained this up a bit higher but...

For those voters who have never been in the least bit interested in a campaign before - have never ever voted for anyone, or at least nobody they cared about, why on earth would you expect that they would stay on and vote democratic if Obama lost?

Like, why??? They were never connected with the democratic party. Many haven't even voted before. Why on earth would you be surprised about them disappearing back into the woodwork if Barack left? Are you bugged at Barack for making a gaff? Meaning that he told the truth when he shouldn't have?

Again, this is LOTS different from the party regulars and long time democratic supporters who are voting for Barack. They WILL support whomever the nominee is. But clearly, a decent percentage of the new voters may not. I'm just struggling with why this would come as a surprise to anyone...

[nonconformist]

58. You're not disputing that it's all about Obama, and not the issues or the country.

In fact, you basically back that up.

[sfam]

67. Its about the total package...but yeah...Obama is the catalyst...

Did you expect hoards of new voters to come in simply because a politician mentioned an issue????

Well did you???

Seriously, I just don't get the vibe here. Are we shocked SHOCKED that most non-voters could give a crap what a regular politician says? The issue is they see Barack as something different. He touches their patriotism in a very real way, so its CLEARLY about the country. They see Barack as helping them take their country back.

And if he leaves the stage, why would you assume this feeling among first time voters (or long time disaffected voters) would "magically" translate to Hillary? Do you really believe this, or is this just a weird "Obama is bad for saying the truth" spin going on here?

[nonconformist]

68. I believe that support come by that superficially can leave just as quickly as it came.

If you're not really invested because of the issues, at the core of it all, it's all just style and hype. Styles change and hype fades. Just wait until the Republican smear machine starts up on Obama. And when the Indies and moderate Republicans decide to jump over to McCain.

You need real substance to hold it together for the long haul. That's what's missing here. It's idealism vs. pragmatism.

Easy come, easy go.

[sfam]

73. Twist this as you see fit, but you really aren't getting what I'm saying...

We are REALLY invested in the issues. More importantly, we are even more invested in what's necessary for making the change. Feel free for calling it all style and hype, but the reality is, as it stands now, EVERY policy position the president gives to congress is dead on arrival. EVERYONE knows this. Without a 60 vote majority in the Senate, it WILL die. Welcome to the last 8-10 years of gridlock.

Some of us are truly tired of this - so much so that we think that if this doesn't get addressed, nothing will happen. Some of us do not believe that 48-52% of our neighbors are inherently evil, or that they support people who are all inherently evil. What if some of those people are actually patriotic and even care about some of the same issues we care about, but just have a different approach. Would we ever know, or would we just continue to shout at them?

Bottom line, having lots of policy positions without any real method of bringing the country behind them - NOT just 50.4% of the country, but a mandate - will result in no real change. We'll get yet another failed attempt at health care, more environmental gridlock and all the rest. So feel free to think you're TRULY invested in the "real" issues while we are all flighty, but perhaps the truth is slightly different from this.

Perhaps the cult is in fact the American people's initial movement towards re-asserting control back over their government. From my perspective, this is substance of a far more sticky nature than your set of issues - one that perhaps is FAR more stable than today's coalition du-jour.

[nonconformist]

76. Well I definitely don't think the answer is to move right.

Which is exactly what this is. Getting everyone on board for what you want to achieve is a noble idea... but it won't work. It's not realistic. I'm sick of this party being pushed right... and now Obama is embracing them, telling them he will compromise with them, and meanwhile he's taking the Democratic base for granted. Fuck that. That's not going to "heal" a nation, that's a recipe for eventually pissing EVERYONE off. Not to mention, the man you expect to lead the charge has a history of being very wishy-washy when it comes to really committing to anything (like with a vote).

As for the issues... maybe you're up to speed on them. But many of his supporters aren't, and that's almost inarguable at this point. There are videos of Obama supporters asked to name a single accomplishment of his and they have no answers. There's a lot of them here on DU, making ignorant comments about both Obama and Clinton's policies. They seem unaware how centrist he is. They seem to think he's this liberal voice for the little guy, but that's just not true. Clinton's policies are more liberal. I really do think that for some, he's getting the anti-Clinton vote because they believe that she's just too centrist... unaware that Obama is more so.

Again, I think it all boils down to idealism vs. pragmatism.

[sfam]

78. That's your mischaracterization...not our view. But did you really say that...

Most Obama supports aren't up on the issues? Really??? Wow, you have access to poll data that I've never seen. You truly should publish it. Fancy that - Obama's supporters are more educated than Hillary's but they don't have a clue what the issues are - so much so that its inarguable. They just follow the pied piper 'cause his tune is sooo enticing...

Truly, this is a tad overboard on your part, don't you think? I get that you think Hillary voters are inherently smarter on the issues...just because. Got it. Check. I just don't buy it. Is Hillary TRULY up on the issues? Absolutely - moreso than virtually anyone else I'd say. But not her supporters -certainly not any more than Obama supporters, at least that I can see.

But again, you seem to be missing what I'm saying. Imagine a large percentage of entire country, regardless of party affiliation, has the goal of getting everyone - EVERYONE covered with high quality, affordable health care. Does Arnold in CA want this? Um, yeah, even Mitt Romney says he wants this. The goal CAN be agreed upon...more importantly, the entire country can get behind this and put REAL pressure on congress to make it happen. But how will this happen? Will it happen with a divisive firebrand, who garners hatred and antagonism by the opposition in even the most innocuous of settings? I really doubt it. Is Hillary going to galvanize the country behind it? Well, is she? Did she do this before? Um, no...she took her folk into a back room and came out with an answer that got trashed months before it even came out.

Her mastery of the issues has never been her problem. But an Obama supporter would say this isn't what will get Health Care to pass. The country needs to be on board with it. This IS NOT a noble idea. This is a necessity. This isn't taking the base for granted, or any other crap you are implying here. Obama's record is clearly not a wingnut record. He's not even centrist - he doesn't support wars of choice, for instance. He doesn't support torture, etc. Those are not liberal policies.

Regarding Idealism vs Pragmatism, this is a fine dychotomy I think, but its not the whole picture. Obama supporters aren't really interested in a 5% change over the next 4 years - they want significant changes. They see the country as being truly off-kilter. And in reality, you don't get change without hope for different tomorrow. This galvanizes support, which leads to practical implementations. Starting with a pragmatic approach up front in absence of hope will lead to more of the same - gridlock and occasional incremental shifts.

[nonconformist]

81. You lost me when you started talking about healthcare.

Because Obama's plan doesn't even call for "EVERYONE" to be covered. He covers less people for more money that she does. That doesn't bode well for your "keen grasp on the issues" argument.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/04/opinion/04krugman.htm...

[sfam]

86. Feel free to use the clinton talking points to disregard my post but...

We both know full well what the difference in the plans are (at least I do). I can recite the talking points (Obama believes people WANT to get health care, Hillary believes it must be mandated and will force it with...um...(DON'T FORCE HER TO SAY HOW!! PLEASE DON'T!!!!), yada yada), but I think you know this isn't what I was talking about. If you want to play fun little campaign "gotcha" word games over your candidate's patented definition of "universal", which as Aristotle and the Bible pointed out LONG before, MUST include mandates, you're talking to the wrong stooge.

Feel free to disregard the issue...AGAIN...that Hillary won't get anything through. Unless she can end the gridlock, her plan is blowing in the wind.

Last try - an Obama supporter is far more interested in the overall goal - NOT the details of a specific policy position and its associated gotcha talking points. We know them as well as you - we just recognize them for the game that they are. The GOAL is getting everyone covered with high quality health care in a way that dramatically lowers overall health care costs and increases the overall health of the nation.

- This means dealing with the perverse issues in hospital systems where bad care results in more medicare dollars to a hospital than those working to lower preventable deaths.

- This means figuring out how to stop the drug company's influence while still generating innovation in medicine, etc.

- This does NOT mean, however, that we start with a set concrete position that says "Mandate care or I'm taking my ball and going home."

Bottom line, the goal is more important than the specifics of the policy position. And the way the goal will be achieved is when a large majority of the population makes it crystal clear to Washington that they will accept nothing less. Unfortunately, I doubt Hillary can do that.

[nonconformist]

87. Newsflash

Mandates and wage garnishing is how we have things like Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid. Arguments against that are pure right-wing.

Anyway, hope all you want. It won't work that way. That's reality.

[sfam]

89. So...no answer to the gridlock problem, ey?

Not a surprise. And spin me right wing if it makes you feel better. Again, I just don't see that spin on DU changes votes, but perhaps some poor sod will look at your post and say, yeah! That dude is SO TOTALLY right wing!!!

Enjoy your reality. But ask yourself, if Hillary could do it over again, do you really think she would have jailed herself in a linguistic prison where she actually has to advocate that hope is a bad thing???

This coming from a candidate who's spouse's motto was a "Man from Hope"...now pragmatic "realism" is what its all about. We must fight and bloody the opposition, 'cause our country MUST stay divided, dammit. Those people are just eeeevil!! And so are my neighbors who support them!!!!

Not in my America they aren't. In my America, when given half a chance, people want to do what's right. People want to make this country better, even if they vote for people I don't. In my America, people prefer to look towards what brings us together, not what separates us. "Divided we stand (and fight each other), united we fall (and cave to the opposition)" is not a motto I want to live by any more. This isn't fleeting fluff that will disapear tomorrow - this is critical to our country's survival.

Goodnight.

[shimmergal]

152. WHAT issues are you saying you're invested in?

That's my main worry with the Obama campaign; no specificity about what issues they think are important enough to try to mobilize the citizenry. ??? HOW are the people going to re-assert control over their government and take it back from the corporatocracy and the MSM? Just by saying, "Please give up some of the power you've taken from us?" I don't think it'll work that way, alas.

[JAbuchan08]

149. What they believe in

are loyalty tests.

They are absolutely determined to shrink the party instead of growing it. They are fine with the Democratic establishment winning elections on the backs of the people while continuing to cede ground to the corporate establishment and the military industrial complex.

[indigoblue]

132. If he is a true democrat,

for his party, he would encourage his supporters to vote for Hilary if he doesn't get his nomination. Edwards was clear on that when he was asked in Olbermann 's show. His campaign is all about him, and he doesn't care about what happens to the country after the GE.

[Sapphocrat]

170. Then there's a disconnect.

"Why on earth would you be surprised about them disappearing back into the woodwork if Barack left?"

Because it makes me question why they're voting in the first place.

Serious question here -- which illustrates much of my un-ease about Obama's support:

Is Barack bringing in new participants to the political process -- or at the very least new Democrats to the party -- or is he merely bringing in new Barack supporters, who, along with their meteoric enthusiasm, will disappear if he doesn't get the nom?

That just doesn't jive with one of the Obama supporters' favorite themes: that we should be grateful for all these fresh new faces among our ranks. Well, I would be grateful, no matter who they voted for, but if their engagement hinges on whether or not a single candidate stays in the race, their credibility flies right out the window.

My first presidential election was in 1980. I was 19 years old, and quite the idealist. I wanted Jerry Brown to win the Democratic nomination. He didn't -- yet I didn't burst into tears and swear off politics. I voted for the nominee, Jimmy Carter. Carter lost, and Ronald Reagan won. I still didn't run away from politics, or from the Democratic Party. I dutifully, and at times enthusiastically, supported and voted for the Democratic nominee. It took no less than 12 years, and three presidential races (Carter, Mondale, and Dukakis), before I finally found myself on the winning side for a change. Now it's been another eight years of losing, yet here I am.

Now, why was I any different than these first-time voters? Perhaps because I had been heavily interested in politics since a very wise junior-high civics teacher forced us 12- and 13-year-olds to sit up and take notice of Watergate. I learned then and there that democracy is not a spectator sport -- and that issues outweigh personality.

Do these first-time voters understand that? From what you're saying, I'm not sure they do. What you're saying is that they are voting for the man, first and foremost. Worse, you appear to be excusing them for it.

That's not what this process is supposed to be about. Not at all. It disturbs me, deeply, that it seems to be A-OK to pull in as many Obama supporters (not new voters, not even new Democrats, but Obama supporters) as possible, by any means, at any cost, when they may not have any idea why they're doing it.

[rodeodance]

128. its that ME ME ME ME stuff!

[New Dawn]

50. Wow, they're red-baiting Obama

First corporate media did that to Edwards (one of the morons on CNN falsely categorized him as "a communist"), and now they're going after Obama. Corporate media clearly wants Hillary Clinton to win the nomination.

[Eric J in MN]

57. Exactly. "Cult of personality" is an expression used to criticize Joseph Stalin. NT

NT

[closeupready]

146. yep. I totally see through this crap, too.

n/t

[JVS]

53. I think that politics are so fucked up now that they call anything better than veiled disgust for...

a candidate a personality cult.

[Sir Jeffrey]

59. "That is not the way democracy is supposed to work"...

What a bunch of self-involved elitist bullshit. Democracy is the freedom to cast a vote for the candidate of your choice or, conversely, the freedom to abstain from participating in the process.

Fuck the New York Times. There is no law requiring anyone to vote for anybody. If someone doesn't want to vote for Clinton, Obama, McCain, Huckabee, or anyone else, that is their right and NOBODY has any right to expect anyone else's votes.

[mrreowwr_kittty]

61. The NYT needs a tall, cool, glass of Haterade. nt

[still_one]

62. Is this the same NY Times that banged the drum so loudly for us to invade Iraq

The NY Times has lost all credibility, along with most other papers when they blindly closed their eyes to what was happening

and THAT wasn't through an editorial as this is, that was through their reporters pushing the Iraq war

[Skwmom]

63. Maybe if more people stood up and said "This is NOT acceptable, I will NOT reward

this type of despicable behavior," our political process and our country would not be in such a mess.

Michelle Obama said she would have to think about WORKING for Clinton. After the despicable tactics that the Clintons have engaged in why should such behavior be rewarded? Why should M.O. take time out of her life to reward the Clinton machine (this would only encourage such future behavior)? Oh that's right, it's OKAY if we prevent people from voting like they did in Nevada, it's okay if we try to pit blacks against whites, and blacks against Hispanics), it's okay if we LIE and send out distorting fliers as long as we are the ones doing it. If people stood up and said no, maybe such despicable tactics would stop. Furthermore, these despicable tactics were not only aimed at Obama and hurt more than Obama.

Mrs. Obama quickly got back on her talking points, stressing party unity. (This is SO BLATANTLY ONE SIDED. Did they know what Mrs. Obama was thinking? Maybe she gave an honest answer to a question but then wanted to explain further so her comment wouldn't be taken out of context. Of course, it's not like the press would EVER do that._

But her unguarded answer was similar to what we heard from Obama supporters in e-mail messages that we received after endorsing Mrs. Clinton. Many of those readers said they would not bother to vote if Mr. Obama lost the nomination. That is not the way democracy is supposed to work....

Get a CLUE. In a democracy, everyone has a RIGHT to vote for or to NOT vote for whoever they choose. Go ahead and criticize those unwilling to condone and get behind someone just because they have a D in front of their name. Maybe if more Republicans would have done this we wouldn't have had eight years of George Bush.

[THUNDER HANDS]

64. his campaign is built around the theme that we (you and him) can bring change

not anyone else.

Just like Hillary's theme is that she has the experience to get things done. She is, in essence, saying that Obama can't.

It's a marketing tool.

He'll support clinton if she wins and urge his supporters to do the same. Most will.

[tabasco]

70. The Screw York Times was all for the war before they were against it!

No wonder they love Hillary so much!

[kennetha]

72. The Messiah Cometh!

Barack is the political messiah. That's how he seems to think of himself and that's certainly how many of his supporters think of him. Frankly, I can't stand messianic politicians. So I wish Barack, who is a talented talker and motivator, would come off this messianic BS.

[Azathoth]

79. Man, the NY Times is pissed. The Hillary campaign is now writing their editorials n/t

[citizen53]

84. It's been apparent for a long time...

if you ever have to interact with Obama supporters.

[Riley133]

85. His charisma factor is noted here from 2006

http://media.www.chicagoflame.com/media/storage/paper51...

[tishaLA]

88. this "cult" thing is obviously a Clinton campaign talking point

and they are simply looking for sympathetic figures among their high-profile media contacts to spread the "cult" angle far and wide. Is it an accident that two similar stories appear on the same day? And precisely the day after Sen Obama told Brian Williams on NBC News that he was listening too much to the opinions in the Clinton campaign? They, as we know, will do and say anything to win an election, and if it's to paint another Democrat as a "cult" leader (and his followers as cultists), they will do it.

Anything to win. Keep smearing, Clinton campaign. It isn't working so far.

[bluedawg12]

91. Not likley- NYT Editorial Op? Nope.

Their message is to leave the legcay of turdblossom behind.

"There is still a chance, at least, to save the race from leaving the country even more divided than in the Bush years. Any candidate, and any party, presuming to unite this country must first unite their own. That is how democracy is supposed to work."

Looks like most of us missed the message of this article: party unity.

[tishaLA]

92. Simply because it reaches a different conclusion

doesn't mean the "cult" message isn't one the Clinton camp is muttering to its media contacts. I think we can all agree that party unity is ultimately important. How it chooses to frame factionalism within the party, and specifically Sen Obama's popularity with a large segment of the party's population, however, is something else entirely.

[bluedawg12]

96. They're warning about the philosophy-in both parties-

that if so and so does get the nomination- I won't vote for my own party.

That's what they were warning about. The "cult" business is thir "op" but the main message is that for democracy to work there has to be a series of reductionist votes until one candidate is chosen out of many- and if the outcome of that final vote is--"well. I played along so far, but if my candidate doesn't win, I will stop playing" is not good for democracy.

It's not the Hilocrat or Obamacrat party- it's the Democratic party.

I think we and the candidates should remind people that regardless of who wins- we will have party unity behind the chosen candidate.

[JAbuchan08]

150. but why do we eventually have to vote for the lowest common denominator?

[TheDonkey]

90. wtf? This paper isn't even worthy for toilet use. Cult status because Mrs Obama isn't a sheep??

she was talking about campaigning for Hill she's have to think about. It is a lot of work.

[bluedawg12]

97. Someone in Mrs. O's position should be very clear:

If she meant: I have worked long and hard for Barack and if his bid doesn't work out- i will have to think long and hard about working for another candidate- I may just weant to go back to family life. But I will vote for my parties' candidate- regardless- although, I believe it will be my husband.

She's a very important public figure now and a very smart lady--she needs better answers than a throw away line like, "I'll have to think about it." Which leaves too much unanswered and left implied.

[TacticalPeek]

95. K & R

[ElsewheresDaughter]

98. the article says it all

[From The Left]

99. Jason Blair, Judith Miller, William Kristol

Nuff said.

[bidenista]

101. lol

Because now the NYT is an enemy of the Democratic Party?



(Or is it just that they question Obama orthodoxy?)

[grassfed]

100. thank you JUDY MILLER

we'll get right on it.