*goosebumps*

Mmmm, kool-aid.

If I had the choice between Barack Obama and Cory Booker, I'd say Booker because I'm seeing him back up his words with his actions.

There's a man who knows how to speak.
Although I'm reminded of the chicken attorney in futurama.

I'd say Booker because I'm seeing him back up his words with his actions.

I'm fairly certain Obama would have to be elected in order to back up his words with actions.

Rival campaigns and the media are starting to advance the idea that because Obama is a good speaker, he can't be strong on substance. Happily, that is not true.

Oh, and Obama ripped empath off for the speech in this post.

I've had several liberal friends complain to me about the empty platitudes of Obama's speeches.

But:

"The only thing we have to fear is fear itself."

"Ask not what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country."

"A house divided against itself cannot stand."

Now, without looking it up, tell me what FDR's stance was on the gold standard? What Kennedy thought about health insurance? What did Lincoln think about tariff policy?

The right-wing attack machine starts revving it's engines preparing for the fight against Obama.

I'm fairly certain Obama would have to be elected in order to back up his words with actions.

He's been an elected official for the past 12 years--perhaps Illinois residents can help clarify, but I hadn't taken much notice of him until the Democratic convention speech 4 years ago.

Roosevelt shut the banks for a while when he first came to office.

His record in Illinois is pretty great. It's easy to Google.

Oh, and Obama ripped empath off for the speech in this post.

Actually, it looks like Obama ripped off a 2006 speech from Deval Patrick.

Wow. No telling how much of a splash this youtube will make.

I am hoping that Hillary stays away from it, even covertly.

One thing I liked about McCain was him saying "I don't want to be President bad enough to do (fill in the blank). Even if he DOES want to be President that bad, I liked that sentiment, and wish that all candidates had limits, beyond which they would not cross.

I am hoping that Hillary stays away from it, even covertly.

Your wish has not been granted. And I think the Clinton campaign may have overshot the mark:

"So if you're asking the electorate to judge you on your promises and you break them, and on your rhetoric and you lift it," argued campaign spokesman Howard Wolfson on a conference call with reporters, "there are fundamental questions that are raised about that campaign and that candidacy."

am I the only one who has already had enough of the Obama craze?

Damn. . .If I were to vote today, I would still vote for HRC on the basis of experience blah blah blah. But I feel it eroding.

The moment I forgive the Clintons for a cringe-worthy move, they do another one. I could make a long list.

*sigh*

I mean I'll vote for Obama, and, by November, I'll probably do it enthusiastically (since McCain will need to run from the FAR right), but right now I am discouraged.

am I the only one who has already had enough of the Obama craze?

I suspect not, but wouldn't it be weird if you were? That'd be some freaky Twilight Zone shit, right there!

am I the only one who has already had enough of the Obama craze?

I'm starting to have enough of people saying they've had enough. I think it's a mark of how deeply estranged we have become from our own political process that people who become engaged and excited enough to show vocal support for a candidate they sincerely believe in are considered to be 'drinking kool-aid,' 'crazed,' not thinking for themselves, or otherwise duped. This is what it looks like when people get involved in politics without having to hold it at arm's length to avoid the faintly off aroma.

Well, there's vocal support and there's "Oh. My. God .. I love this guy", "*goosebumps*" and so on. Engagement in politics doesn't require hero-worship.

What happens if/when Obama becomes president and David Axelrod and his other speechwriters stop working for him? I bet people will suddenly feel much less "engaged and excited" in politics.

On the other hand, it's unfair to blame Obama for what his supporters say and do.

As a short, broad overview of Obama's prospects as president, I liked this piece in the FT by Clive Crook. Despite the title ("Fine words and the economic reality"), Crook firmly supports Obama and says:

Mr Obama is a paradox, as yet unresolved. His plan and his votes in the Senate show that he is a liberal, not a centrist. And he is no wavering or accidental liberal. His ideas are of a piece. He sees – or convinces people that he sees – a bigger picture. And yet this leftist visionary is pragmatic, non-ideological and accommodating of dissent. More than that, in fact, he seems keen to listen to and learn from those who disagree with him. What a strange and beguiling combination this is.

It makes him an electrifying candidate – one the Democrats would be crazy not to nominate – but also, to be sure, a gamble. If Mr Obama is elected, it might turn out that there is no “there” there. Indecision, drift and effete triangulation are one possibility. Equally disappointing would be if the office wore away the pragmatism and open-mindedness, to reveal an inner dogmatist. Perhaps, though, Mr Obama really can transcend Washington’s partisan paralysis and build support for one or two big important reforms – starting with healthcare. Voters (and commentators) have the better part of a year to decide whether this pushes the audacity of hope too far.

Oh cock, I forgot the link.

I find nothing wrong with considering charisma or Star Power when voting. History smiles on Kennedy and Reagan, correct? Juice me up.

I think it's a mark of how deeply estranged we have become from our own political process that people who become engaged and excited enough to show vocal support for a candidate they sincerely believe in are considered to be 'drinking kool-aid,' 'crazed,' not thinking for themselves, or otherwise duped.

Miko, While I agree with you 95% of the time on politics, I seem to recall you making some vary comparable disparaging remarks about Ron Paul supporters.

Once again, I'm oblivious of the apparent frenzy, since I don't talk to many people about politics IRL (with the country more divided than I've ever seen it, it seems like a bad idea).

Easy there, Matthewr. As much as I like Obama, I'm not about to dive under a truck for the man, or go off like a raving lunatic at a Hillary rally enough to get jabbed by an ex-President.

The point is: when has anyone in our generation (I mean this broadly, I turn 40 in two months) ever heard someone who can deliver a speech like this?

The man is a solid candidate. His speeches always seek to include the electorate, to keep things positive, to make sure we don't forget people who have sacrificed a ton to get us where we are.

There's nothing at all wrong with this. Ever hear McCain speak? It's like watching a well-meaning six-year old recite the virtues of Our Friend, the Giraffe.

I may be into the kool-aid, but tell me this: despite how we all voted, may feel about this election, etc. -is it not absolutely fantastic that someone can pop out of the woodwork and electrify the country the way Obama has?

I don't know, man. I'll take sugar dollops of hope speech over "I-I-I'm the Decider!" any day.

Early voting starts in Texas tomorrow. This is the first time I've seen any kind of legitimate* ads run in TX during the election cycle.

I can't wait to vote for the Big O. It'll wind up being a very interesting primary.

*the hack-ass Swift-Boat Vets ran ads here four years ago.

Well, there's vocal support and there's "Oh. My. God .. I love this guy", "*goosebumps*" and so on. Engagement in politics doesn't require hero-worship.

I agree, it doesn't. But I suggest that what you're hearing is not worship for a hero, but surprised and grateful appreciation for a person who talks about America the way many of us have wanted to hear for a long time, and been unable to due to the political climate. He has reached a national audience by saying what many of us have felt for a long time, by referencing the highest ideals of our polity and the brightest moments in our history, by planting the idea that we can potentially do that well again - and it is really heartening to see someone doing that and succeeding. Americans sometimes do get goosebumps when the greatest moments in our history are mentioned, we really do.

What happens if/when Obama becomes president and David Axelrod and his other speechwriters stop working for him? I bet people will suddenly feel much less "engaged and excited" in politics.

Obama is not an overnight sensation or a creation of his writers. He didn't have the speechwriters when he wrote his books (though of course I'm sure he had great editors) nor when we was a college professor for a decade, nor when he made his famous speech at the convention in 2004. These are his ideas - well shaped by the hands of a writer who, by all accounts, is sympatico with Obama's language and views - but his ideas. I've seen him in person, speaking off the cuff, and he's no less fluid or exciting when he's off book. Also, I've been learning about him in a serious way since I read this New Yorker profile in May. I didn't decide to support his campaign until December, but it's not as though I just suddenly hopped aboard a bandwagon. I've done my homework. That's why I'm a bit sensitive about the 'kool-aid' implications; I was a Hillary supporter, and a hard sell. And I don't want to crown Obama or settle a halo on his head. But I do think he's a real leader. He may fail (the Carter comparison gives me pause) but if he did, he would fail in what I believe is a sincere effort to improve the nation.

Pie: I did object to Paul supporters who showed up at a Hillary function and shoved their signs in front of her signs and pushed their way to the front of the camera line. I haven't seen Obama supporters doing that - it may very well be that there are some who have - I haven't happened to see it. If I did, I would think it was crappy, too, and you would be right to call me out if I defended it. But my other objection to Paul supporters remains: it was not that they're rabid or excited about their candidate but that I think they are crazy. Obama's supporters are certainly enthused, some very much so, but they don't strike me as generally crazy.

For what it's worth, I've been very impressed with Michelle Obama's stump speeches. I might be wrong, but I think they're pretty much all off the cuff, and so far they've been dynamite.