The Baracklash
I wonder whether most readers will find something depressing about the Baracklash (I hereby copyright this word) we see in the US and , with even joining in.
Gerry Baker et al make perfectly well-argued cases and it is not that I am in love with Obama (see previous entries), but consumers of journalism often complain about the see-saw effect of building up figures and then doing them down; something unconducive, they claim, to proper consideration of their underlying virtues. So, Hillary Clinton was inevitable before she was toast etc, etc...
Having said that, the effect is caused by the perfectly legitimate desire to take sceptical aim at something that is flying - and before it flies, frankly, who cares?
Meanwhile, thank goodness the - much addressed by Mitt Romney, I seem to remember - have been given a voice.
Hello, I'm 
颁辞尘尘别苍迟蝉听听 Post your comment
Is Obama the American Mandela? Obama brings a message of hope and change to a country at the crossroads. It is choice between the past and the future. But is Obama the American Mandela who could inspire Americans to a better future at home? And a future where America takes it rightful place at the global table? Is he the one? The question of whether Obama is the American Mandela is discussed in my blog Angry African on the Loose at
Baracklash. Very catchy.
If I may borrow from the German... Obama's about to go from revival to survival.
The media has gone from "Yes we can" to "But should we?"
How can you say Gerry Baker's wildly over-the-top article was well argued?
I don't understand what you are talking about? Is it the tendency of the media to 'spin'? Or gesticulating at the 'hope' that Obama inspires? Perhaps it is a racist reaction to change in Europe? Are you trying to add to the depression? Maybe it's much ado about nothing!
The most annoying thing about the media is the media talking about what the media does.
"Gerry Baker et al make perfectly well-argued cases"
Really? They certainly seem to save you the job of making a case. But it is a very weak and, in Gerry Baker's article, narrow minded case, devoid of substance...the very thing that Obama gets so ridiculously accused of.
Good words doesn't mean hot air. There is plenty of evidence to show that Mr Barack is a serious, wise and committed politician. Lazy journalists will always fail to seek out the reality, and bigots will latch on to their words like moths to a flame.
Ah yes this would the same media who in 2000 decided Bush was just a goofy guy who kept tripping over his tongue and was essentially pretty harmless? Personally I feel the media only runs positive stories about people in public life to build up the shock value when they turn on the hapless individual. There seems precious little to separate political reporting these days from the mass of paparazzi who hover like vultures over celebrities like Britney Spears waiting for them to make a mistake, or invent one if the won't oblige.
I had to read all of your links before I understood what you are talking about. A little context next time, please? There has been no observable "Baracklash" here in New Jersey, but perhaps your new copyrighted term will hypocritically help encourage one.
PS: I hope readers outside the US will recognize that the Onion is a satirical newspaper and keep recycling.
So what? Everyone knows that politicians tell lies when seeking to be elected. (Anyone remember a former presidential candidate who said "No new taxes," only to change his mind in office once he saw how things really were?) Should either democrat be elected at the end of this year, the middle class will see higher taxes. It is simple mathematics: there are more folks in the middle class than the loop-hole using highest 2% of US wage earners. And while the president wields some power, there are two other branches of government that get involved, with the legislative branch that is quite fond of lobbyists. So, anyone who promises change will have an extremely hard time of it once in office.
I appreciate your commentary, JW. My Scottish friend directed me here because all the women I know now boycott the extremely biased TV coverage of the discriminatory debasing treatment of Senator Clinton--especially by all the "Broadcasters" on MSNBC. They no longer deserve to be called journalists. What we see is the modern day media stoning to death of a woman. And the worst case of Schadenfreude in the history of the human race. All the while giving a pass to the black male candidate who has all of 24 months of experience on the Federal government level. Because, as American women have now been TOLD by Howard Fineman of the mess MSNBC/Newsweek: the first viable black male candidate for president is MORE HISTORIC and MORE Important than the first viable woman candidate for US President. Fineman's mysogynistic history is alive and well. Question his "Experience"??? Why bother! He's charismatic! We wonder, what would the primary election have been like if the US press had not completely passed on the opportunity to cover it as the historic run it has been by the first viable woman candidate for the presidency, who has run a successful national campaign and is now one of the last two candidates standing. Not one word of THAT historic journey from Senaca Falls, NY to August 20, 1920, to Senator Hillary Clinton runs for President of the United States.
For me, I find it terribly insulting to my intelligence as a pro-active citizen to have a man who has only 24 months of experience at the federal level run for president of the United States, on a platform built entirely of spouting 1990's New Age Self-Help book passages. If you think his lifting of Patrick's speech was in bad form (college students are expelled for what Barack has done); you should really "tune in" and hear his paraphrasing of every NY Times best-selling 1990's New Age Self Help Book. "You Can Change Your Life." "The Healing of America." Etc. It goes on and on. It is all fluff. To credit appropriately, "There is No THERE there." Add to that, Barack has ZERO (0) Military Experience, Zero Foreign Policy Experience; Zero International Diplomacy Experience. Apparently, the gravitas of a US Presidential meeting (let alone negotiations) will have no worth and value in a Barack administration. Gee, THAT's gonna come in handy. And the most liberal voting record in the US Senate. And, and the US is at war in count 'em 2, that's 2 Arabian countries. The next president inherits George Bush 2nd's decision to take the US Military deep into Arabia. And the guy has NO Military or International EXPERIENCE!!! Don't be so quick to dismiss the expertise of Senator McCain. What you all fail to realize is that Battle-Tested (let alone POW Tested!), older REAL Military men tend to be very conservative committing the US Military to war. They know what the real cost is. It is the presidents with NO military experience who tend to be cavalier with that committment. But what we have here in the US is the "Oprah President" being propelled straight to victory. Senator Clinton has the powerful leaders of the World's Countries on her speed dial. And Barack has Oprah and Gail. God Bless (Help) America.
Not depressing at all - it's high time the media gave Mr Obama some serious scrutiny. Although Justin avows that he is "not in love with Obama", despite his protestations his writing does not demonstrate that he gives Mrs Clinton the same kind of forgiving coverage; indeed, stating that she is "toast" is an unnecessary comment since that is purely assumption on his part. The media, and in particular the press, have adopted a pro-Obama stance but perhaps now they can see he is not a man of substance and, importantly, that he is not yet qualified for the presidency.
I voted early to move Mrs. Clinton ahead of Obama. After watching the debates in here in Austin I did notice one thing. He (Obama) has nothing new to give us. He reminds me of Jimmy Carter that in effect will doe nothing in the long run but give us recession and bad times. This can be said of Clinton. Since I choose to be replubican I will place a vote for Clinton and then vote Mccain since he too is a Democrat with no good direction. Face it there is nothing good to come of this election but just bad times for all. Not only for US but the world in general. Maybe in the next election we as a country can find a person that can help us move forward out of this bleak time. It is sad the choices are so bleak and the public is just what you can do for me now. Just a sad lot and nothing good for all of us. The Obama we can change is nothing but fluff. Clinton and Mccain is nothing short of the same old thing. Now JFK had some vision just like Reagan did. Rgiht now there is nothing but the same old take money from people and shuffle to your old buddies in congress. Be glad you do not have to vote with bad group of choices.
I look forward to 2012. Maybe someone will be like JFK and Reagan to get something to happen.
Cheers and pray for all us.
Obama is the perfect gentleman to be US president. The media will always try their best to underline that but all in all " We're ready to go! " Vote for real change as you all need it.
justin,
surely the language tracking on 'obama':
is much more quirky and interesting than an increasing number of babies named barack? (yawn)... although at least you can probably submit 'baracklash' to slate's 'encyclopedia baracktannica'.
on a more serious note, as a cynic *for* barack obama, i'd love for the media to submit him to a bit more scrutiny, too. ( i agree with this woman:
let's face it, the debate in texas did clearly show he's no intellectual slouch, and when forced to, he can actually talk policy, not just 'change'. and for all hillary's droning on about her greater experience, he does have a few legislative coups under his belt. it's just they rarely get reported on either side of the pond.
Build 'em up, knock 'em down - The sign of lazy journalism. Reporting on other journos doing it - the sign of incestuous, lazy journalism.
In the United States I can walk into any restaurant, store, bar and proudly sing out "Obama" and there will be people in the room who say "Obama" back. But if you do the same with "Hillary" or McCain" people will think you are nuts. Europe doesn't get Obama at all. He is like Michael Jordan, Martin Luther King Jr, Mohammad Ali, Ray Charles. Even more important, everyone could be having a bad day at work and when someone calls out "O-ba-ma" it's like a code word which really means, "oh yeah let's party!"
With all the economic gloom worries about homes, jobs and family, Obama is a wonderful cheerleader. I think I should also mention that we are all white males between 29 and 37 years of age and mostly registered Republicans. I think Obama will be the next president of the United States.
These candidates adjust words and subjects to meet different audiences and it鈥檚 not what they will do, talk about their experience but have countless advisers to 鈥渢each鈥 them, claim years of experience that are more like 1 or 2 years of experience repeated many times and talk about 鈥渃hange鈥 when experience tends to deter change.
The candidate to vote for is the one that inspires the nation, brings hope back, believes heartedly in his/her words and let his advisers and aids do the job but ultimately what can be done and how to be done is decided when the candidate enters the White House and faces the so far unknown realities.
For now Obama is the man.
Justin - a question...if Obama wins in November will he offer the Secretary of State job to McCain? Things seem to be following the West Wing fairly closely already so why not through to the finish? Obama is Matt Santos not Jedd Bartlett.
Germany does not possess an enviable record for choosing leaders.
There is no feeling of depression in anything associated with OBAMA!!!!! You Clinton supporters (Justin Webb included) should be the ones depressed with the way her faltering campaign is going. Nothing negative you guys throw out will help your cause, whether it is a 'perfectly well-argued case' or not.
Watch out for President OBAMA; you haters will most definitely bow your heads in shame!!!
Well said Miss America. I agree completely.
The largest part of Obama's appeal is that he is NOT Hillary.
The positions articulated by both are very similar.
So similar, that positions are a non issue.
While Obama was not my first choice, I (and I suspect most others) are comfortable enough with him to support him over McCain because of the war issues alone.
Once the dust has settled on the primary and Hillary has gracefully conceded after the Texas shellacing ( March 8?), then Obama will focus on the campaign promises that no politician can honor but all the citizens and media still insist that they make.
The one real aspect of his statements that I like so far is the LACK of specificity and the qualifiers he prefers to use when he does describe the goals he has for a WH term.
"Ask me no questions and I'll tell you no lies" is a breath of fresh air compared to the usual pontificating and promise making we get from politicians.
90% of what a President will do is guidance of programs rather than the formulating of them which is the province Congress and their purse strings to actually effect.
I think a good (and worrying) comparison for Obama may be Tony BLiar. Appeared to start well in 1997 - inexperienced in government, eloquent and a breath of fresh air,seemingly. But as the wheels came off BLiar's wagon, hot air was all that was left. viz : a cobbled peace in N Ireland,sofa government, a dodgy dossier and eloquent lies that led to Iraq, and ....nothing of worth. Result : a disgusted party which could not wait to see the back of him.
Thanks for the Spiegel link, Justin.
I wish the media would step back from its obvious promotion of one candidate over another and try to be objective journalists for a change. What we have been seeing in this primary process is a disgrace ! Where is the substance! What are the real issues that concern America ? Why don't the media - biased democratic - point out the cost of these promises that are being touted. We cannot afford everything they say they will do. The Office of President does NOT have the power to do all the candidates promise. When will Americans wake-up and stop dreaming. We need to elect leaders not pretty voices. OK, Bush can't speak well but he certainly can lead a nation. Blair can do both. In the end, America needs a leader not a cheer leader.
Perhaps the problem is with the sheer length of the whole process, from primaries to general election. If hacks want their viewers and readers to follow this long story, they need to make sure it keeps changing & holds the attention. Even if these changes and developments need to be 'massaged' somewhat.
Clinton's downfall? The Baracklash? In truth, nothing more than fluctuations in an ongoing contest that is not yet determined, and won't be for some time. In the meantime, there are pages to fill and (presumably) sub-editors to placate.
Reminds me of the Ron Paul supporters - they made a massive fuss about him, plastered his name all over the internet, and then turned and said 'well he must be a big deal - just look at how many people are talking about him!' Clinton's current losing streak only overturns the myth of infallibility which the media itself created. I think there is a danger that the media begins to feed its own stories back to itself, thus encircling itself in its own, separate 'reality'.
I shouldn't have a go at the media, as I think JW and the 主播大秀 actually do a great job. Responsible, really, is a crazily overlong election process. Yes, it is an impressive display of mass democracy, yes it makes great copy, but ultimately it must be unsustainable. Journalists chasing their own tails are a sure marker of what's going wrong...
If this is Bush leading, I wonder what would happen if he just decided to relax and have a drink and a smoke. On second thought, yikes.
It's not that easy to "lead" in American politics. You cant just be the guy (or girl) making all the decisions and putting forth an agenda, blah blah blah. You need to be a smooth talking, deal making diplomat who can be the pretty face of all of the USA's policies, bad and good. Bush was a pretty good choice...he looked totally unassuming and then razed the Middle East and is working really, really hard on draining the life blood out of the military. Sweet. A+ work USA.
Basically, you need a mean girl. Everyone wants to be her, no one likes her. She walks down the halls in your high school, and everyone stares. Senator Obama is the mean girl in this case. His expereince (or lack thereof), his policies, whatever: all immaterial.
Senator Clinton is probably the better politician, but she isn't (and this is the real key) the better show-woman. She gets her hands dirty, she gets in the mix, she draws blood, as we've seen. However, she isnt glamourous, and Americans hate reality (unless its edited, of course, then I'm all about it).
America can't win for trying these days. We're racist if we don't elect Obama, we're racist if we do. Explains why the US more and more goes it alone and ignores the world. The world simply is light years from reality.
What people don't understand, we don't want the Clintons back in the white house....plain and simple.
Her policies aren't different from Obama's. If Obama was not the other candidate she would've ran her campaign to the center, get elected then move to her comfort zone...left-wing.
Barack Obama may be riding the crest of a wave but this is not likely to last. Hilary has tremendous powers of resurgence and just like her husband, 'the comeback kid', she has the capacity to resurge. So anyone foolish enough to write her off will eat their words. After all she has the experience and the empathy to take America to new heights. Obama has so much to learn: humility for starters.
Barack Obama may be riding the crest of a wave but this is not likely to last. Hilary has tremendous powers of resurgence and just like her husband, 'the comeback kid', she has the capacity to resurge. So anyone foolish enough to write her off will eat their words. After all she has the experience and the empathy to take America to new heights. Obama has so much to learn: humility for starters.
Miss America is right and Penny put it better..... American needs a leader not a cheerleader.
Well, if you hadn't built Obama up to such a level without backing it up with factual evidence it wouldn't be so easy and overdue to bring him back down to size to now. So there's no point moaning when people start to think; hang on a second where did I hear that line before, oh yeah, and then remember that the person who used it first failed to live up to their expectations as well so maybe people do need to think again.
Of course a proper unbiased reporter wouldn't have been folled by spin from either side and then would be able to honestly claim to be impartial - given you are in awe of Barrack how can you possibly claim to be able to provide impartial proper reporting?
And you lot wonder why journalists are held in as much contempt as politicians! Go figure!
I wonder what part of the U.S. John K lives in. If I walked into a restaurant in our city and yelled out "Obama", or the names of any candidate for that matter, the customers would think I was a candidate for the funny farm.
What, Justin, no mention of the Michelle Obama speech in Milwaukee in which she made the fatuous and disgraceful statement that "For the first time in my adult life I am really proud of my country......." I commend to you Michelle Malkin's article on this subject, which I doubt if you will find in the New York Times, which as you know is now on trial among right-thinking people all over the country for publishing a false and scurrilous attack on John McCain. It seems that that bastion of liberal journalism is bent on emulating the Brit tabloids!
Not the best thread to put this in but since Justin hasn't commented on it I thought I might as well put forward this quote from Clinton:
"The only agreement I entered into was not to campaign in Michigan and Florida. It had nothing to do with not seating the delegates."
in other words she intends to try and have the delegates seated at the convention. This mealy-mouthed, sneaky comment all by itself convices me that she is deeply unfit to be a candidate for President of the USA, especially as she didn't even stick by the agreement not to campaign.
The blunt fact is that the Florida and Michigan delegates might get her the Candidacy but it will keep her from the White House. The Republicans will accuse her, with some justification, of stealing the vote and with the negative perceptions of her already abroad in the media she will be a lame duck.
As a someone watching the election very closely from inside the US I have to say I have heard little in the way of harsh criticism of Barak Obama. While he is indeed getting everything he says more thoroughly looked over now, being essentially the presumptive nominee that is to be expected. He is, however, coming out on top most times, except if it's someone biased like Fox News doing the reporting.
I don't see Gerard Baker's piece as a backlash against media adulation. It's something that should be very familiar to anyone who heard conservative commentators in Britain in the 80s and 90s: Vote for (insert name of Labour/Democratic candidate here) and he will raise your taxes. If Clinton had been the front runner now, he would have written exactly the same article with her name in place of Obama's.
His challenge to people to examine the content of Obama's speeches is pure bluff: no matter what Obama actually says, Baker and his like will spend the next nine months shouting that he said 'more taxes'. Obama's sin, pure and simple, is not to be Republican, something so heinous and unforgivable that nothing can expiate it except a unanimous Senate vote to make Bush President-for-Life.
The United States has not had a leader for seven long years. Most Americans are counting the days when Mr Bush steps down and we will all be celebrating the day a new president will be inaugurated. Obama will most likely be the one because he is articulate, looks presidential and has not been corrupted yet. Hillary is too much a politician and is totally different from her husband. McCain would give us more of the same.
Americans everywhere are coming together,determined to reclaim America and restore its moral eminence. Obama happens to carry the beacon of hope for the resurrection.
What awful nonsense the Gerard Baker article is! No wonder some of the more insular Americans say equally nonsensical things like "The world simply is light years from reality"!
Baker, as the Times's US correspondent, should get out and about and speak to a few Americans rather than produce these caricatures. Or is he just being an obedient lapdog for his boss, Rupert Murdoch, who seems very nervous indeed of Obama.
The reality is, folks, that Obama is in no sense a leftist, even by US standards. He's pretty centrist in US politics; McCain is (obviously) on the right while Clinton is center-right.
What irony. What melodrama. The recent darlings of Europhile European politics Jacques Chirac and Gerhard Schroeder could hardly have scripted a more perfect candidate for the role of President of the United States from their perspective than Barack Obama and now the very real prospect of actually having him sitting in the White House for 4 years is scaring the bejeebers out of Europe. Why? Lots of reasons. For one thing, it's easy to take pot shots at a strong leader when you are sitting on the sidelines letting him do all of the heavy lifting if you don't like where he is leading events but it's quite another to have to live without any real leadership from the one place you have counted on it being there for you when you needed it all your life. For another, it's hard criticizing someone who is doing exactly what you said a million times you wanted someone in his position to do and the same things you try to do yourself when it doesn't work out any better for Americans than it does for Europeans.
Weak, charismatic, inexperienced, and clueless about foreign policy and economics, Mr. Obama is just about the worst nightmare that could come true. The last time we had such a man in charge, he nearly blew up the world one day. That's the real legacy of President Kennedy, his weakness nearly led to World War III with the USSR. We may not survive this one...and Europe knows it. Tough luck Europe, you should have been more careful what you wished for. And there isn't a thing you can do about it, it is completely out of your hands. America will get the government it deserves...even if it is one so failed the world will long for the good old days of President Bush.
You're still at it, Justin! what have you got against Obama?
The Spiegel piece is a magisterial exercise in illogic and caricature utterly divorced from factual analysis. More lucid analysts have weighed in on these very same doubts.
Mario
It is your electorate and media that play on the racist issues. Other world wide media just pick up on this. As for trying...what is so "trying"? If you're trying as in trying to do something, this implies something is wrong and you want to fix it. So perhaps that is why you feel the world ignores you, because you are the last to realise "it" is broken and needs fixing!
Otherwise why would you be pro-Obama, as his mandate is change and change from the current mess?!
#4...spin is created for the media not by the media. To misguide and misrepresent or disguise.
#26
It is your electorate and media that play on the racist issues. Other world wide media just pick up on this. As for trying...what is so "trying"? If you're trying as in trying to do something, this implies something is wrong and you want to fix it. So perhaps that is why you feel the world ignores you, because you are the last to realise "it" is broken and needs fixing!
Otherwise why would you be pro-Obama, as his mandate is change and change from the current mess?!
Hillary is desperate.
She had years to lead and assemble the votes by persisting to push for her pet health projects in the Senate, but she did not. . . . . .
That is the real story.
Her present whining is most unattractive.
She needs to concentrate on better defining her campaign.
Gabor Steingart is brave. For one thing, he risks being dubbed a racist for making such statements as "Politics in a democratic society is a balancing of interests, not a revivalist meeting." But Steingart sees clearly what American supporters of Obama don't: for example, Obama is constrained by tradition in American foreign policy making. he talks of CHANGE, and he could deal adequately with Europe and Africa, but could he depart from custom regarding Israeli-Palestinian relations? What about Cuba? I ask these questions about Obama because I already know the position of the GOP's likely nominee. (To be fair, the same questions could be asked of Hillary Clinton.)
Justin, thanks for your posts and especially for your links, they are really interesting.
As a legal alien in the US I am really fascinated with the Obama crowds. Many of them talk/write as if they were a sort of baptist congregation, following the words of their beloved reverend. I am not saying it is bad, it is just really surprising.
Maybe Obama is the political messiah that many people seem to be expecting, but I do think it is fair game to wonder whether he is the true messiah or not (Monty Python's Life of Brian inevitably comes to my mind). I am also curious to see what will happen with his staunch supporters (some of which tend to identify skeptics with Hillary's minions for what I read here) if he eventually turns out to be just another flop.
It is also interesting that many people in the US reduce the international affairs to a)war or b)rogue countries. But IMO US main contenders are EU, China and Russia. I wonder how Obama will fare against rulers like Putin or Hu Jintao. Will he try to convert them just as Bush looked into Putin's soul? Will he lead the US to a second golden era of world influence? I just cannot wait to see.
I think Hillary is running a real campaign against Obama, and definitely the Republicans and the media which is totally Probama. Why are they pressuring the former first lady so much? Especially the media is criticizing every tiny detail about Hillary. When she is tough, the media misinterprets her representation of ideas and convey a wrong message to the nation's populace and when she is demonstrating her dignity and acknowledging the historical turning point of this race then she is considered to be conceding. Obama is lucky that he is not so much under strict scrutiny from the media or the Republicans. I think some Independent voters and Republican voters are voting for Obama so that he can win the nomination now and later be defeated by McCain. Hillary is a candidate with a solid background who can skillfully battle the challenges our country is facing now. With her adroit use of experience and knowledge we can also see a budget surplus, innovative advancement and voice for every Americans.
It is time for all of us to coalesce and stand up for Hillary and help her to win the nomination. Hillary is the only one who can beat McCain in the general election. I can foresee that it is very imminent when Obama will be attacked for his limited experience in the arena of national affairs by the Republicans. In the general elections it is possible that McCain will win all the red states that Obama have won so far. We need Hillary who can unite the country and move this nation forward not backwards.
Baracklash? Good luck with that one.
What some people don,t seem to get about this is that a lot of Americans really believe in the ideals we were taught our country stands for---as expressed in, say, the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution---and we like the idea that someone in a leadership position believes it is possible to live up to those ideals.
"The pen is mightier than the sword," and all its variations, has a lot of truth in it. If the press is suspicious because someone uses language well, it might explain why they so often use it badly.
Trimmer UK #23: "Cobeled peace"? While I hte Blair just as muh as you, however I don't think anyone can rationally say that the peace achieved their (Irland) in the last year and stare in 98 was anything but a job welll done. It took many decades of hard nigociateing and tinasity, which I think was admerable. Its a shame these same cherictoristics weren't employed with the lead up to Iraq, though.
I really, really hope your wrong about Obama, though. He said he was, and voted against sending troops into Iraq from the start, and has since been very outspoken against it. So I very much hope, that should he become president, he not go down the same path as Blair in terms of changeing his mind and starting preemptive wars-no matter what the circumstance!
A fascinating review of the "Baracklash" as found on the internet can be seen here:
Perhaps by the time voters cast their ballots in Texas, those who are wavering will see the merits of Mrs Clinton and the hollowness of Mr Obama's campaign.
Of those currently in the race, Hillary Clinton would be the best president. But regardless of who gets elected, it will likely be only a one-term presidency because of the mess coming down the pike from the Bush administration. Whether Republican or Democrat, the next U.S. president will be a fall guy - er, person.
I've had quite enough change over the past seven years, and there will be a lot more pain as we try to get America back on track. It was an honor for me to have voted for Hillary here in Illinois. I hope she is elected.
Barack is the future of the USA if it want to stay as as super power for the next 50/100 years. Barack has a plan not only to bring change in USA but in the whole world. Barack is carrying the spirit of Mandela along with him and he is going to be the Mandela of America.
Clinton have already tested that as she attack Barack and he never retailate and never pay back knowing that Clinton is his colleague in the same party thus no need to attack and spoil the chance of the party if she win the nomination. Contrary to Clinton who has an old American spirit known in the world self interest. It is clear that Clinton carrys no spirit of change in her and she damaging the party and spoiling its chance to win the next election.She simple want to rule and does not care what damage that will cause to her party or her country. Barack is the hope of Amercians as well as of the World, he is the man who is to bring change into our world.
After two terms of living behind the Bush, Americans are looking for change 鈥 for good.
The Clintons are very much seen as the "Old Guards" with their own political baggage and obligations to sponsors & lobbyists鈥 from the past.
The Bush boo-boos are benefiting Obama in leading Clinton now. The same force for change is going to carry Obama all the way to the White House.
The question would then be, how much Obama Administration is going to conform to Washington politics?
Funny! In the 45 years I've been alive, or at least since I can remember, every single presidential race has had candidates preaching change. Yet, to this day, I've never seen any change in Washington. But every four years, the wool is pulled over Americans eyes for a time, they loose their voice cheering for the next person who will 'change' this country, and then we settle back to where we've always been, and the word 'change' is put back in it's velvet case until the next election.
As a resident of the UK, so far I have not seen or heard one positive news item on the 主播大秀 relating to Obama - all the 主播大秀 seem keen on at the moment is mispronouncing his name. The only Baracklash -as is going on in America by the sound of things- will be against the pro-Hillary establishment.
Glad to see Hillary has come out fighting today. For too long the media and Hillary's campaign have made life too easy for Obama. His speeches are well received but are full of nothing. There is no substance whatsoever. For too long he has been allowed to get away with this. Somebody really needs to start questioning his record, his ability, and his readiness to hold the position of President. The Clinton campaign needs to really push this point ahead of the next primaries, otherwise McCain will brush Obama aside by November.
Ralph Naders announcement today that he will once again run for President, has thrown up the memories of Gores narrow defeat in 2000. With Naders voters coming almost exclusively from blue collar, democratic base.
Is it possible that a the Republican right will see a candidacy thrown into the ring? John McCain is clearly challenged to reconcile his liberal voting record. Mike Huckabee seems hell bent on taking this race to the finish, so the record will continue to be exposed. Even if McCain chooses a right wing running mate, its unlikely to truly pacify the bible belt states and its Republican base. I can see a nomination coming...a pro-lifer, anti-immigration, fist pumping fundametalist.
Just a slightly off-topic thought that occurred to me...
If, as currently seems likely (I know it could change), the presidential race is between McCain and Obama, the conventional handshakes before and after the TV debates will hold quite a visual contrast - between a small (5' 7"), rotund, old , balding white man and a tall (6' 1"), lean, youngish mixed race man - both with compelling but different personalities.
Do people believe that the subconscious messages that these visual factors might convey important in the context of a leadership contest?
And might they be even more significant given that both (apart from the war which declines in electoral importance we are told) will be claiming the political middle ground?
Assuming that such visual signals are a factor in people's subconscious choices - particularly where there are fewer alternative differential factors - I would guess that, overall, Obama would benefit from being seen as often as possible with McCain - as the taller, younger, more vigorous-appearing and handsome (to me!) candidate.
Do people agree? Or would it make him "blacker" and, as a result, the conventional assumptions would suggest, less electable? Or is Obama bringing America across that particular Rubicon?
I felt that john k's comment (No. 16) is particularly interesting in this regard.
"Baracklash (I hereby copyright this word".
Justin, you can't copyright words! Try trade mark.
As for the 'Baracklash' - the media has tried to play an influencing role throughout this whole affair, so nothing new here. After yesterday's outburst from Billary, I wouldnt be surprised if this is not her last attempt to sully BO.
There was an interesting article about Obama yesterday. He had mentioned a soldier - who had complained about lack of Humvees, etc in Iraq - during the Austin debate. A former senator, a McCain supporter pounced on him, asking for details, ostensibly for verifying facts. The arrogant assumption was that Obama was lying and is about to be exposed. The Obama campaign put the senator in touch with the soldier, who backed Obama's words. A word of caution who go after Obama with the superficial assumption that is all talk and no substance - do so at your own risk
Baracklash? Good luck with that one.
What some people don't seem to get about this is that a lot of Americans really believe in the ideals we were taught our country stands for---as expressed in, say, the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution---and we like the idea that someone in a leadership position believes it is possible to live up to those ideals.
"The pen is mightier than the sword," and all its variations, has a lot of truth in it. If the press is suspicious because someone uses language well, it might explain why they so often use it badly.
I found this blog by way of the 主播大秀, and am glad I stopped in. I wasn't entirely sure what Justin was referring to (I agree with someone else who said maybe he should've given a little background), but as another mentioned, a journalist complaining about journalists isn't that interesting. In fact, after reading the entry I asked myself, Yes, but what did he SAY?? Seemed like a lot of hot air. I totally agree, however, with "Miss America's" entry. She summed up well my ambivalence toward Obama. I wish I could be excited about him like my sister and many coworkers are, but I can't, and now I can consciously see why from her little essay. I personally would like to see the Clintons back in the White House. 24 months' worth of experience on the federal level just doesn't cut it.
There's nothing new about the German article you link to - its author is a well known distorter of facts who sees journalism as a kind of crusade against whatever, whomever.
It became too much even for his highbrow-yellow press employers of Der Spiegel, where he went from crown prince to freelance within a few years. He's been ranting about Obama ever since he learned to spell the name.
Just a reminder: the last time I checked, Times (UK) is owned by Rupert Murdoch, and is part of the Fox News empire. Suddenly the Gerry Baker "well argued" article makes sense, right?!
Can't believe Justin Webb is endorsing such skewed views!
There is indeed somethinh "depressing" about this kind of presumed "baracklash", coming as it does from the predictable reactionary sources that are keen to reinforce the de facto limits of political discourse in right-wing America. The near hysterical attack by the familiar Tory dry in the Times is particulary amusing as he has little say in the contest anyway. But what's
'depressing' is the ludicrous notion that Obama is "far left"; or Kennedy or Dukakis or Mondale, no less. By reinforcing this ridiculous notion, it makes any true Left positions seem beyond the pale and keeps the whole permissable political spectrum in America firmy anchored far right. A very familiar if not so clever ploy. And speaking of ridiculous, the Onion fantasy is more right-wing capitalista virtue-of-selfishness twaddle by an unelected phoney spokesman for the future. A very "depressing" future too, if he has his way. Fortunately, however, there is a virtuous antidote to this kind of right wing rubbish now in the person of the inestimable Ralph Nader. A candidate with impeccable personal and political virtues that truly does represent a shining "lefty" vision of "hope" and "change" that can be the salvation of present and future generations. Run, Ralph, run! At last, a candidate we can truly believe in!
There is indeed somethinh "depressing" about this kind of presumed "baracklash", coming as it does from the predictable reactionary sources that are keen to reinforce the de facto limits of political discourse in right-wing America. The near hysterical attack by the familiar Tory dry in the Times is particulary amusing as he has little say in the contest anyway. But what's
'depressing' is the ludicrous notion that Obama is "far left"; or Kennedy or Dukakis or Mondale, no less. By reinforcing this ridiculous notion, it makes any true Left positions seem beyond the pale and keeps the whole permissable political spectrum in America firmy anchored far right. A very familiar if not so clever ploy. And speaking of ridiculous, the Onion fantasy is more right-wing capitalista virtue-of-selfishness twaddle by an unelected phoney spokesman for the future. A very "depressing" future too, if he has his way. Fortunately, however, there is a virtuous antidote to this kind of right wing rubbish now in the person of the inestimable Ralph Nader. A candidate with impeccable personal and political virtues that truly does represent a shining "lefty" vision of "hope" and "change" that can be the salvation of present and future generations. Run, Ralph, run! At last, a candidate we can truly believe in!
Baracklash or Barackmania?
Both are very catchy but the "change" is exactly what? "Yes, we can", what exactly we can? Sooner or later the press catches up as the hip slogans provide the media with what the "bubbles" provide to inexperienced investors. A roller coaster ride with several victims at the end. As an American living overseas, please focus on the issues because we are getting a bit tired of "hiding our passports".
At #38
Hi Mary
Maybe I was too harsh over the 'cobbled peace' - though it is and was a 'cobbled peace', IMO. The killings continue.
Wish I was wrong about Obama - but did he not talk of bombing Pakistan ? Abd the media blowback seems to be starting.
The othe comparison to Obama seems to me to be Jimmy Carter : well-intentioned, but pretty ineffectual. A balm to the rough time under (GOP)Nixon ( Ford was but a temporary palliative). You vote peanuts : you get monkeys.
I don't relish HRC : she seems too much of the old guard, stilted and lacking empathy. But rather her, than "Bomb! Bomb! Bomb! Bomb Iran!" McCain.
Obama? Lol... no way. He may have some Pied Piper power over liberal Democrats, particularly the black ones who like to see a "brother" make it big, as well as the white liberals who can feel good about themselves for voting for a black man.
But come November, the rest of America gets a vote. And we'll take experience and a plan over some messianic "yes, we can" garbage.
Baracklash, hmmm? I am skeptical of this assessment as I sincerely doubt it is quite as simple a picture as you paint it, Mr. Webb.
First and foremost, I have read multiple sources in Europe regarding Obama and Clinton, from Paris to Prague to Manchester and back again. I cannot help but find it telling that very few articles refrain from fawning over Hillary Clinton like some second-coming-of-Bill: not a single one mentions that although she is the spouse of a politician her actual experience independent of her husband (where her name is on the ballot and her signature gives weight to legislation) is actually not much greater than Obama's. Her sphere of experience, thus, effectively extends to fundraising, campaigning, and advising powerful men but she has only been in the driver's seat just a hair longer than Obama.
It is bitterly humorous that European media organizations like der Spiegel or the 主播大秀 overlook what Edmund Burke knew over 200 years ago, if I may paraphrase: a statesman owes the people not only his service, but his good judgment. There is evidence to support the argument that Hillary Clinton has not shown terribly much over the past ten years. Her votes regarding the Iraq War, its funding, its continuation and most notably its commencement were mostly "yeas," even in spite of the fact that the woman is on many powerful committees. (this lack of mention borders on poor journalism when any vote in Congress is a matter of public record-easily searchable on Google in a matter of minutes.)
It is equally disconcerting that no European journalist I have read has paid much attention to the simple fact that First Ladies have neither the authority nor clearance for major executive branch decisions (anyone who has ever seen Laura Bush, Hilary Clinton,or Barbara Bush in possession of the nuclear football or knowledgeably discuss its contents may now raise their hands....hmm, oddly silent.) A part of me wonders who is raising whom up on a pedestal blindly, so eager to see the return of Billary they ignore facts, do not care to look closer at the whispers (why would an illiterate man from Fuzhou who is fresh of the boat suddenly contribute so much money to a campaign of a woman whose name he can barely pronounce?)
In regards to Barack Obama, I have an answer to Steingart: I personally would rather take a chance on the man provided he can select a running mate that can keep his ideas anchored (it is never mentioned anywhere in the article that many of his ideas are actually explained at greater length and depth in his book.) In fact, I would rather take a gamble and lose then have to go through another round of militaristic crap or set the stage for political dynasty. I shall withhold my vote until I see him battle against McCain (if he gets there), but until then I will enjoy being a fool too blind to realize turning my country around is impossibe.
Obama's only had a couple of years in Congress. He's so green behind the ears, he doesn't even know how to solicit large contributions from the big special interests as soft money the way experienced politicians do. Instead, he was reduced to going hat in hand to the voters for their nickles and dimes. Good thing he has the gift of gab to lure them in, it's the one asset he's used to get this far. Imagine what will happen on January 21, 2009 if he gets elected, he will go into the Oval Office, sit behind the big desk and say "Now What?" And who will be there to tell him what to do next?
About the only good thing about the McCain 鈥 Obama lineup is that we will have more of a distinct (lack of) choice come election time. But just reading the posts on this site, I think the level of crass, baseless, political pseudo-vitriol will sadden a good portion of the populace away from the poles, thus leaving the results to the farthest left and right. Example: Republicans have always been better at bumper-stickers. Last cycle, it was the very clever yet inappropriate 鈥淔lush the Johns in 04鈥. This time, I am already seeing the 鈥淲ash Away the BO in 08鈥. This is not going to be a pleasant year.
Mario said: "America can't win for trying these days. We're racist if we don't elect Obama, we're racist if we do. Explains why the US more and more goes it alone and ignores the world."
The USA has a total of over 700 overseas military bases in 63 countries, and military personnel present in 156 countries. That's "ignoring the world"?
Gerad Baker's article in Times is very similar to an article in Economist, except for the over the top bits like "warning" and "dangerous". It seems to be a backlash from the right wing press. Having said that, other commentators from the Times are pretty pro-Obama, maybe it's just Baker.
No, of course it is fun to worship Obama.
Let us indeed have fun.
Let us not think.
That would be depressing.
It is forbidden to doubt Obama. He is quite literally God walking on earth.
If we worship enough, it can all work out.
Hillary? Pooh ! Sooooo boring !
You journo's are pathetic.
Here is hillery getting the biggest free ride in history.
The lady that loved nafta . now hates.
loved the war .now doesn't.
If she were any other woman she would not have even got so far with such a pathetic display.
But you carry on giving her credit. because you journo's can't see what the rest can see.
She's a fake.
but you give her credit so she is still running.Still.
the most desperate house wife in the US.
with nothing she has done . complaining about barack steeling lines? she does it all the time .
Tim russet showed where she stole from john edwards. so where does she get let off by you the uslessly bias brit press.
Hi, Miss America, can we go through the facts? I tend to think the greatest paradox in this US presidential race is the attack on Obama as an empty suit because it鈥檚 the attack itself that鈥檚 void of substance. With preconceived and for some instinctive aversion, many simply dismiss the relatively young senator (older than Hoover, Kennedy and Clinton when they became president) as all talk and no substance without listening to what he is saying, without reading his programme etc. At least, it seems the Observer has and now Obama鈥檚 no more an empty suit but a borrowed one (from Clinton鈥檚). Strange to think that Obama, the flighty numbskull politician, is a Harvard Law Professor!
Miss America says Obama has 鈥渙nly 24 months of experience at the federal level鈥 - good you say at the federal level, cause he鈥檚 been in public office longer than Hillary Clinton and has had more statutes enacted. Funny that Miss America still 鈥渉onours鈥 Obama with 鈥渢he most liberal voting record in the US Senate鈥 Award in spite of the infinitesimal experience. He seems to have 鈥渁chieved鈥 something if we go by her words.
Miss America says he鈥檚 (in a serial manner) lifted 鈥1990's New Age Self-Help book passages鈥 鈥 wasn鈥檛 that in the 1990鈥檚 a revamp of Delano Roosevelt鈥檚 Self Help spirit in 1930s? Miss America says he鈥檚 got 鈥淶ERO (0) Military Experience, Zero Foreign Policy Experience; Zero International Diplomacy Experience鈥 鈥 just what military and foreign policy experience did Bill Clinton have in 1992 or George Bush in 2000?
Miss America says 鈥淩EAL Military men tend to be very conservative committing the US Military to war鈥 鈥 JFK was a soldier and never recovered from a back injury sustained during war 鈥 go see how conservative he was in committing the US to war. Nixon served as a Navy Lieutenant Commander in the pacific during the Second World War and Johnson reported to General MacArthur in the war with Japan 鈥 go see how conservative these guys were in committing more troops to Vietnam. Bill Clinton didn鈥檛 fight any war but exercised more restraint than most presidents post world war II.
Miss America says 鈥淪enator Clinton has the powerful leaders of the World's Countries on her speed dial鈥 and I wonder if Mrs. Clinton was born to the American Royal Family or she became acquainted with these leaders by virtue of her position as first lady. Anyone who becomes US president becomes the world鈥檚 most powerful person and leaders of all countries scramble to have such person remember their name. What鈥檚 needed like some have said are VISION, STAMINA, ENTHUSIASM and CHARISMA (to make people accept painful reforms). Reforms are usually guided by party policies that tend to be similar irrespective of the candidate 鈥 presidents fail because like W Bush they derail and focus on special interests 鈥 thinking that the rest would come around.
It was inevitable that the Baracklash was coming - and unlike in 'Noo Joisey' it does seem North America is realising something new about him...
Talking about change is just like marketing diet bars and skin cream. Sure, it's a great idea, but how is he going to make it happen? When pinned down, he flails, like over dealing with Castro. In the meantime, people love those emotional quotes...
I think North Americans are so easily duped by the politicians who sell themselves like product, catchy phrases and Oprah selling him like a book of the month. But for a politician, unlike a yoghourt, you are stuck with him for around 4 years.
As for his shame over the African dress - well i think Obama played up his African roots, his black father left him when he was 3 and Obama grew up in a rich house with white parents in Hawaii. I find nothing offensive in African dress, but I do think it is disappointing he tries to portray the image of being so African and gives no thanks to the white folk who brought him up. After all, lots of people are voting for him on the post poll interviews "because he's balck." A leader of the women's movement was on CNN here recently and she said if Obama was a white male, he would not be doing so well in the polls, even if he made it to the ballot sheet. And to a large extent I think that is true. Being policy-deficient is something that kills off most wannabe candidates.
But then again, it's the marketing, isn't it? So if the Baracklash comes true, just like selling those diet pills that don't work, isn't it his and his campaign's fault for his little house of cards beginning to tumble?
If he does become president, I can see the magic 8 ball coming out in the White House. Perhaps like Nancy and Ron, they can just hire a psychic!
People hate change. The like status quo. What change will Hillary bring to DC? What changes did she make representing NY? It is the sam eold stuff. People lost their jobs because of NAFTA. Her Medicare did not work in 1993. How will it work now?
She is now denying that even people who cannot afford the medicare will be forced to buy it; and yet that is part of her program as it is spelled out. So, what credibility can such candidate have?
"Shame on you, Obama" - is this a polite way to address a citizen as future president?
Bill Clinton, please take courage and tell your wife that it is over. You are the best person to tell her that. Don't wait for other to tell her for you.
The day before it was it was 'plagiarism'; yesterday 'spreading lies about medicare'; today 'clothes in Africa'; what will they bring again tomorrow?
Is that experience that will uplift America?
If HRC cannot realize that she is doomed at 60, when will she have wisdom to lead America?
Mark,
Reagon had no experience but was one of the most succesfull presidents in American history. Indeed, Kennedy nearly caused WW3 but that had nothing to do with his charisma. He didn't listen to his advisers and used his own, to limited knowledge, to take important decisions. He was also responsible for the escalation of the Vietnam War.
Obama, Clinton or McCain will all make good presidents, only when they listen to their advisers. A president should be able to cooperate, with Democrats, Republicans and the US allies.
In your comment your negative view of Europe is very clear. I can explain you a lot about anti-americanism in Europe if you want to. Living in one of the most pro-american nations in Europe, bordering more americasceptic nations (Germany) you can be sure I know what I'm talking about.
However this 'when you are sitting on the sidelines letting him do all of the heavy lifting' is an insult towards pro-amarican people (majority of the Europeans) and the family of the European soldiers who died in Iraq and Afghanistan. This doesn't mean I agree with France or Germany. I think they should send more troops to Afghanistan (more active in Nato, also in the future).
I knew I am going to rub some people the wrong way by posting a comment here, but like Martin Luther, who proclaimed "Hier Stehe Ich" , I stand by my convictions and will not debase them in times of great import.
"Obama, Schmobama" is one of the "obamaisms" collected by SLATE MAGAZINE, which would be delighted to add your "baracklash". It connotes the fatigue inspired by hoping for change that will for once make us proud of our country, by having to believe that yes we can forget the same old yesterdays, and all the preaching urging us to have faith in united tomorrows.
(Old Talleyrand, who had lived through more regimes than most mortals, and knew that the rhetoric of change just concealed a search for power, used to be more cynical: "Plus 莽a change, plus 莽a reste la m锚me chose." He lived in America, but preferred to create his aphorisms in French. This one has become world-famous)
Being a male feminist, I am rooting for Hillary, and support Comment No. 10 ("Miss America"). I am infinitely depressed to realize that the only chance to get a woman in the White House this century may vanish punctured by Hollywood's romantic infatuation with an acceptable black candidate who is capitalizing and riding on Americans' guilt to promote himself.
Obama is no real change: another Harvard Law School graduate as a candidate, as we have had so many before and will have many more. No mistake: I am a Harvard alumnus myself, and considered entering the law school, and have always regretted not to have done so. My best friends in NY and here are all lawyers, because they are the only ones who can use their brains besides venting out their emotions.
I am a dyed-in-the-wool Democrat. But I've studied philosophy, theology, history, and anthropology. I am not taken in by the same old rhetoric of new gods, new values, shining tomorrows to replace old gods, old values, same old yesterdays that all demagogues 鈥 founders of religions or movements, would-be revolutionaries 鈥 have used in recorded times, from Socrates to Obama. This is powerful language, that, especially when sprinkled with quasi-religious ideological preaching, always works well with the young 鈥攎ostly inexperienced, and driven by their emotional needs and dreams.
For a real change, I'd love to have a Wellesley woman as candidate. I have always considered the Wellesley girls the best-educated women in the US, probably the world, and I've always dreamt of marrying one. In another life...But in this one I am one of Hillary's fans. To little avail so far. Michelle Obama instead of Hillary Clinton, some trade! Of course, Hillary Clinton has a record, she is a woman with a past, and it's always easy to pick and attack people with a record and a past. But Obama himself is not a completely unstained slate, but there's much less to expose to light and criticize. And having voted against the Irak war makes him a saint for all his fans. All the others (including Hillary) are just black devils.
Nevertheless, I don't trust this man. His involvement with a crooked real estate guy, his easy plagiarizing, his flaunting his use of drugs to convince the young that he is one of them, and his blatantly populist rhetoric, get my antennae up that this man is not simon-pure.
Even the Democrats Abroad voted for Obama...Which makes me angry and depressed. Oh well, the Democrats may learn a big lesson if McCain gets elected. They consider Republicans as non-Americans, which is a major case of blindness. The Democratic slogan "Reclaim America" is literally absurd. Many of my best friends are Republicans!
I am not too annoyed that my great and only love, Scarlett Johansson, is supporting Obama. She is carried away by the Hollywood wave, who loves to find a romantic figure as a candidate鈥 excellent material for all kinds of stories and possible movies.
I am not surprised nor flustered by many Democrats' reaction. Obama fans think that we are unholy, pariahs, devils,. This is pure nonsense., if you pardon my French.
Roo.bookaroo
I have reviewed both Obama's and Hillary's policy and I must say that there is very little difference. I have watched 3 debates between the 2 candidates and often their answers are the same. If the so call Democrates Party Leaders were smart they would conference with the 2 candidates and suggest they run on the same ticket as Pres. and Vice-Pres. This will give them more assurance of a win in November. I beleive Obama would have a tough time beating McCain. Hillary could beat McCain but cannot beat Obama.
Nemo the Fish said: "Reagon had no experience but was one of the most succesfull presidents in American history. Indeed, Kennedy nearly caused WW3 but that had nothing to do with his charisma. He didn't listen to his advisers and used his own, to limited knowledge, to take important decisions."
Actually, Reagan nearly caused WW3 as well, in November 1983: his "Evil Empire" rhetoric, and deployment of cruise and Pershing missiles in Europe, so frightened the doddering Soviet leadership (this was the Andropov era), they misinterpreted a NATO exercise, "Able Archer", as cover for a real attack. They spent a whole night ready to respond to the first sign of a NATO missile launch which they thought imminent. It is said that learning of this near-miss global catastrophe changed Reagan's approach to the USSR.
At this point, I would only reiterate what has already been spoken. The Clinton camp would staunchly claim that the media is manipulating the candidacy, while the Obama camp would claim that it is the people who are speaking. The obvious flaw is in an election system that allows such intangibles as momentum to sway people鈥檚 opinion. This is a time when tangible action is needed to handle tangible issues such as mortgage payments, deficits and recession. But of course momentum, the same momentum that makes or breaks pop stars, has become a synonym for a media driven campaign that makes or breaks politicians. The absolute idiocy that a bumbling dotard is declared victor because he 鈥渄id not do that bad鈥 makes me ill. We鈥檙e proclaiming with the loudest praise that horrible precedent that occurred when television took over ideas and issued demagogues instead of statesmen. Democracy diluted has widened its scope into youtube, and web blogs. We are witnessing the culmination of a lingering death. We will soon burry democracy.
Obama is reaching the end of his upwar swing. The pendulum is coming down for barack obama's rise. Like the Emperor's new clothing the pwople will see through this and it will catch fire. It will eventually be Clinton all the way. Root for UNIVERAL HEALTH CARE . Hillary!!