Deprecated: mb_convert_encoding(): Handling HTML entities via mbstring is deprecated; use htmlspecialchars, htmlentities, or mb_encode_numericentity/mb_decode_numericentity instead in /var/www/html/wp-content/plugins/super-cool-ad-inserter/inc/scaip-shortcode-inserter.php on line 37

I don’t want to blame Barack Obama for the fact that his appearance at Soldiers and Sailors today was a SLIGHT letdown for me. The expectations have been raised so high that  it’s unfair to judge a Presidential candidate by them. A certain disappointment would have been inevitable for me unless he’d reattached a Roman soldier’s ear, or raised Lazarus from the tomb.

Besides, the crowd was FAR more enthusiastic than it had been for a Clinton appearance at Soldiers & Sailors two weeks before. 

On one level, that’s kind of strange. While Obama is a gifted speaker, his appearance wasn’t THAT much better than Clinton’s. And as almost everyone knows, there isn’t much difference between Obama and Clinton on a policy level. Early on, Obama joked that the campaign has gone on so long that he and Clinton could take each other’s debate lines and not miss a beat. The truth is they could do it without changing their platforms much, either. 

The rest of his speech reflected that: Like Clinton, Obama promised to give us a healthcare plan similar to the one they have in Congress, and decried the treatment of veterans returning from Iraq. There wasn’t a hell of a lot of substance in his speech, but then there wasn’t much in Clinton’s either. (You can see footage of Obama’s speech — in two parts — by clicking here.) 

No, the real diference between Obama and Clinton was in the crowd itself. It wasn’t just that it was more diverse in terms of age and ethnicity, or that the room was somewhat more crowded. It wasn’t just that there were more reporters there. (Even local colleges sent TV crews — something they didn’t do for Clinton. Some of the more veteran local camera guys were grousing over how crowded the risers were getting, thanks to the arrival of minor media players. Like, um, City Paper.) The real difference was in the enthusiasm of the crowd: There were rousing cheers even for some of Obama’s more cliched lines, and a give-and-take with the crowd that was totally absent from Clinton’s appearance. And after the event, the atmosphere was much more festive than Clinton’s more sedate following. There wasa lot more merchandising, for one thing.

Every politician does what Obama does — pledge to change the Beltway culture and remake the country from the ground up. And it’s not that I saw Obama do anything special to make people believe it. From what I could see, the people in that room were believers already. The measure of Obama’s success is not the energy he brought to the room, but the energy the crowd carried with it … energy which has now reached the level where it sustains itself. 

I’m not saying Obama is an empty suit or a cipher. I’m saying that ALL candidates — or at least all the successful ones — get where they are by virtue of the emotional associations that get attached to them. At some point, the old politician’s cliche becomes true: The race really ISN’T about them. It’s about an excitement they spark, but that soon begins to feed on itself. And if their appearances in Oakland are any indication, Obama has a decided advantage on that score.

In fact, the big news from today’s rally will be that Obama receieved the endorsement of Sen. Robert Casey. This is not EXACTLY a surprise; the Casey family’s antipathy for the Clintons is well known. (You may recall that Casey’s father was not given a chance to speak at the 1992 convention, when Bill Clinton became the nominee.) But Hillary Clinton’s campaign is counting on winning big in Pennsylvania, on the strength of the state’s “Casey Democrats” — union-friendly, economically liberal but socially conservative voters. Now the biggest Casey Democrat of all is throwing his support behind Obama.

Ironically, later in his speech, Obama derided those doubters who once  thought he needed  the support of party insiders in order to win. More than a few Obama supporters, I’ll wager, thought Bob Casey was just such an insider as recently as 24 hours ago. (And they would STILL have thought so had Casey backed Clinton.) But Obama has reached that heady point where he can have it both ways — scooping up the support of party insiders, while at the same time pledging to take those insiders on. You can’t even call that hypocrisy at a certain point: It’s the inevitable result of what happens when a campaign becomes large enough to be self-sustaining, large enough to win.

Most polls still suggest a Clinton whomping in Pennsyvlania — she’s up by 15 or 20 points.  But I’m going to go out on a limb and suggest a much tighter margin. I’m guessing Clinton by a margin of half the expected size … partly because of the recent surge in voter registration across the state, partly because of the Casey backing, partly because of the contrasting levels of enthusiasm at the two Oakland rallies.

Clinton too, suffers from high expectations about her performance here. But if SHE fails to live up to those hopes, the cost will be much higher. 

This article appears in Mar 27 – Apr 2, 2008.

Latest in Lynn Cullen Live

SLIDESHOWS

RELATED

E-mail Chris Potter about this post.

11 replies on “Obamania”

  1. Obama is a better candidate than Hillary Clinton.

    Take a close look at Hillary Clinton’s real “experience”:

    1. Voted for the Iraq War.

    2. Failed to reform healthcare in the early 1990s, just the way she promises again she will reform it now.

    3. Mismanaged her Presidential campaign: it went broke so she had to lend it $5 million of her personal fortune. The campaign is rife with infighting and low blows against Obama.

    4. Helped push through NAFTA. Turns out she lied when she said she was against it. http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2008/03/clintons-1993-n.html http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20080319/pl_nm/usa_politics_clinton_records_dc http://news.yahoo.com/s/thenation/20080320/cm_thenation/1300860

    5. Is hiding all sorts of records, including her records as First Lady, her donor and other records from her and Bill’s $500 million “charity”, and her and Bill’s tax returns which will show how they made a ton of dough off of their “public service.”

    To top it all off, Hillary Clinton didn’t do half the stuff she says she did as First Lady. For example she says she was running for her life when she landed in Bosnia when in fact she was greeted in a ceremony where a young child kissed her. Hillary’s excuse when she got caught lying: sleep deprivation! Oh yeah, she’ll really be ready for that 3am call. Turns out she didn’t do much in negotiating the peace treaty in Ireland either.

    I’ll take Obama any day. There is a reason he is winning this election on every count. He was against the Iraq war from the start. He has fought for ethics reform in Congress and disclosing how our taxpayer dollars are spent on all those contractors. He will clean up our government. He will bring us together.

    Obama is our best shot. If we have unity and hope, we can change America. If we don’t, we have no chance.

  2. I am registered as an Independent, but I am really sorry to see the (often petty) mud slinging going on within the Democratic party. I hope they can heal once a candidate is selected because both are good candidates.

    What gives me pause is what I perceive to be a cult of personality surrounding Barack Obama. It’s reflected in individual supporters as well as the media. America should have a leader with charisma, but I hope it does not eclipse real qualifications and experience.

    I agree that there is not much difference between the two candidates on a policy level. However, I think a woman in the White House will bring about profound changes in our country, its mindset and its perception by the rest of the world. If she wins the nomination, I will certainly vote for Hillary Clinton.

  3. If she is the nominee, I also will vote for Hillary Clinton without question. However I stand with Obama in this primary.

    I see what you’re saying about the “cult of personality”, only I think it is just a function of his enormous political ability. It is the responsibility of a President to inspire the citizenry around principles, and to forge coalitions large enough to work by using the bully-pulpit.

    My read is that in comparison, the gulf between the candidates in terms of policy OR experience is very small indeed.

  4. “You may write me down in history
    With your bitter, twisted lies,
    You may trod me in the very dirt
    But still, like dust, I’ll rise.

    This is not the first time you have seen Hillary Clinton seemingly at her wits end, but she has always risen, always risen, much to the dismay of her adversaries and the delight of her friends.

    Hillary Clinton will not give up on you and all she asks of you is that you do not give up on her.

    There is a world of difference between being a woman and being an old female. If you’re born a girl, grow up, and live long enough, you can become an old female. But, to become a woman is a serious matter. A woman takes responsibility for the time she takes up and the space she occupies.

    Hillary Clinton is a woman. She has been there and done that and has still risen. She is in this race for the long haul. She intends to make a difference in our country.

    She is the prayer of every woman and man who long for fair play, healthy families, good schools, and a balanced economy.

    She declares she wants to see more smiles in the families, more courtesies between men and women, more honesty in the marketplace. Hillary Clinton intends to help our country to what it can become.

    She means to rise.

    She means to help our country rise. Don’t give up on her, ever.

    In fact, if you help her to rise, you will rise with her and help her make this country a wonderful, wonderful place where every man and every woman can live freely without sanctimonious piety, without crippling fear.

    Rise Hillary.

    Rise. ”
    Maya Angelou

  6. There are substantial differences between Clinton and Obama on a policy level, it’s just hard to get those differences to be a topic of discussion. Biggest difference is foreign policy. We need deeper media analysis on their approaches. The debate format is too clipped for voters to see the difference.

  7. Here is a bit of foriegn policy that some are probably not aware of:

    OBAMA & His Cousin President Odinga of Kenya

    I would like to know when the msm is going to address of OBAMA’s involvement and support of RAILA ODINGA -the co-President of Kenya?
    ODINGA was set up in the oil business by Muammar Quaddafi (no, I’m not kidding), was educated in Communist East Germany, named his first child “Fidel” (yeah, really) and when he and his followers disputed the election they torched a church with 100 christian woman & children inside–burning them alive. Odinga’s followers continued to engage in “clear ethnic cleansing” according to US Envoy Jendayi Frazer. Perhaps most troubling is Odinga’s links to Islamic extremists. On 8/29/07 Odinga signed a secret agreement (exposed 11/27) with Sheikh Abdullah Abdi in which he agreed to institute Islamic law in exchange for Abdi’s support–thereby potentially enslaving millions of Kenyan women.
    OBAMA campaigned for ODINGA (“your agent for change”-sound familiar) in August 2006–to such a degree that the Opposition called him Odinga’s “stooge”
    Read for yourself:
    http://eakenya.org/newsevents/article.htm?id=8
    http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/7176683.stm
    http://www.thestar.com/News/World/article/290390
    http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=57363
    http://africanpress.wordpress.com/2007/04/26/how-rich-is-raila-the-odm-kenya-presidential-aspirant/

    WONDER WHAT THE REPUBLICANS WILL MAKE OUT OF THAT?
    SURELY THAT”s BETTER THAN NOT WEARING A LAPEL PIN?
    YA THINK?

  8. An empty suit is what you get with Obama.When you see this man walk out on stage that has an American flag he doesnt salute it he more or less just stands there. You know when one of our American wounded comes to where the flag is raised he will struggle to get up out of a wheel chair to salute this American symbol.Obama comes with a lot of baggage like reverend wright and Oprah who doesn’t believe in god or anything he stands for.Do we want to wreck our America because of a misguided feelings for a person who doesnt have any feelings for his country or the people in it.He comes with a lot of dirty bagage.Nadhmi Auchi and Tony Rezko Just type these names into your browser and read.

  10. Either Clinton or Obama a tragedy for America. In selecting your Presidential candidate, please reflect on the dire consequences of a docile retreat before a relatively small band of Islamic extremists; and, attempt to formulate your own opinion as to the most prudent course of action in the defense of our Nation. It might assist to consider the following scenario: the infiltration of a group of terrorists similar to the Atta cabal with a quantity of weaponized anthrax procured from a rogue state; the acquisition of a single crop-duster aircraft fitted with a dry-agent disseminator; and, the dispersal of that dangerous toxin over an American population center. The loss of American life would be catastrophic. -Or-, is it preferable to pre-empt such fanatics by destroying them on their home turf, such as Afghanistan and Iraq, BEFORE they secure the capacity to threaten our homeland? The latter is in fact a key element in current American strategy. Is it advisable to support any candidate who would reverse course and sacrifice the impressive gains against Islamofacists that young Americans have shed their precious blood to achieve? The fact that we have not experienced another 9/11 is not a by-chance occurrence. Further, it’s critical to appreciate the pivotal role that our own border security plays in our “war against terrorism”, keeping in mind that “Amnesty” is anathema to border security. A Nation without enforceable borders will not long survive as a Nation. The policies espoused by both Clinton and Obama would grievously damage our Nation’s National Security Interests; and, intensify America’s vulnerabilities to terrorist activities. As history has repeatedly taught with grim consequences, PEACE is won only THRU STRENGTH; and, NOT THRU the nebulous psychosis of HOPE. Greg Neubeck

Comments are closed.