Too important to fail

[susanbanks44]

I couldn't pass up the opportunity to stop by my local Starbucks in North Carolina last Saturday to get a tall brew and chat with the group of Obama supporters who use it as their headquarters for weekly neighbourhood canvassing operations.

There was a certain sense of foreboding in the air. Rumours of Citibank's takeover of Charlotte-headquartered Wachovia were already rampant, and whenever your home state's flagship bank gets bought up at firesale prices, you just know that layoffs are imminent, and it makes folks nervous. The financial debates in Washington had taken on new and suddenly very personal aspect. This wasn't mere politics any more. This was about survival.

There were at least seven or eight volunteers congregating outside in the cool autumn morning, and as one pair would leave, canvassing packets in hand, a few more would show up ready to get to work. It was an excellent place to hear these Obamanauts wax rhapsodic about their candidate.

For an allegedly fanatical band of supporters blindly following a charismatic leader, they were strangely critical of Obama's performance in Friday's presidential debate. Indeed, over the course of an hour, every single one had virtually pages of criticism about the debate. Obama talked too much about taxes. He didn't talk enough about taxes. He spent too much time on the war and the surge. He didn't hit the war hard enough. He didn't go after McCain enough. He was too sharp on McCain. He showed far too much deference to his opponent. He was far too insolent to his opponent. His answers sounded too polished and practiced. His answers weren't flowing naturally and freely - why didn't he practice more? The consensus was clearly that Obama did OK, but he should have done better – with each of his supposedly obsessive supporters knowing exactly what he should have said.


More:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cifamerica/2008/sep/30/barack.obama.election.economy