Obama Obroad

[Deckard]

"This trip is not at all a political trip or a rally of any sort," said Obama aide Robert Gibbs. "It is a series of substantive meetings with our friends and our allies to talk about the challenges we face and the national security demands for the 21st century."


Substantive meetings.... not at all a political trip.....

Does anyone really believe that?



When you cut through the crap, isn't this really - first and foremost - about being seen to be abroad?

About photo ops, about stockpiling anecdotes that can be used in upcoming debates ("Well, y'know.... I have seen for myself first hand....")

And of course resetting to zero that pesky "days since" counter on the GOP homepage.

I don't mean to be overly cynical or single out Obama as such. I just can't help feeling it's all dishonest pretending that, for instance, the substantive meetings or information-gathering represent the bulk of what this is about, or indeed couldn't happen without the trip.

This is so undeniably political, and has been so heavily trailed, I'll be surprised if it retains much of its intended political power.

Perhaps the outcome will swing it though.

I notice there's a big concern that the rapturous enthusiasm that's very likely to greet him around the world could actually put people off back home, in the sense that it may reinforce the Republican message that he's "not one of us".

Amazing.

His aides are apparently busy ensuring that as many photo ops as possible include signs emphasizing his "Americanness" to balance any such fears - flags, large statue of bald eagle, etc.

[BeautifulBurnout]

It's bizarre (my word of the week).

It never ceases to amaze me - the propensity for politicians of every political colour to assume that we can't see through what they say and do.

I sometimes find myself wondering if that is because the vast majority of the population really are so dumb that they can't see through it, or just don't care enough to question any given political line. Or maybe it is just that, if they say something enough times, they think they will convince us?

People must have pretty much made up their minds who they are going to be voting for. It strikes me that those who are still undecided are likely to be the more intelligent rather than the less intelligent - people who really want to look at policies and ideologies of the candidates. And these are the people least likely to be bludgeoned by this kind of double-speak, imo.

[Sean]

Yeah, it's hard to swallow the claim that this isn't be about the photo-ops and opportunity to beef up the perception of Obama's overseas "experience". Certainly he will engage in substantive meetings, but clearly this is primarily a political trip.

To be perfectly honest though, it's not like the campaign can just come right out and say that "yeah...this is mainly politically motivated". Not with the Republicans waiting to pounce on any tiny opportunity that presents itself. But then a better move might have been simply focusing on the trip itself, and not really speaking to the motivations for it too directly.

Originally Posted by BeautifulBurnout

I sometimes find myself wondering if that is because the vast majority of the population really are so dumb that they can't see through it, or just don't care enough to question any given political line. Or maybe it is just that, if they say something enough times, they think they will convince us?

Personally, I think it's because a large percentage of the population is so dumb that if he acknowledged something like this, the simplistic response would be one of horror that he would do something so brazen and that he's a phony. It would be far worse than the response he's getting from people like us right now. Basically, I don't think people like us tend to decide who to vote for based on the rhetoric framing a political trip, but a lot of others out there would.

[dubman]

Originally Posted by BeautifulBurnout

It's bizarre (my word of the week).

It never ceases to amaze me - the propensity for politicians of every political colour to assume that we can't see through what they say and do.

I sometimes find myself wondering if that is because the vast majority of the population really are so dumb that they can't see through it, or just don't care enough to question any given political line. Or maybe it is just that, if they say something enough times, they think they will convince us?

People must have pretty much made up their minds who they are going to be voting for. It strikes me that those who are still undecided are likely to be the more intelligent rather than the less intelligent - people who really want to look at policies and ideologies of the candidates. And these are the people least likely to be bludgeoned by this kind of double-speak, imo.

if they never, ever, ever, EVER cop to their cynical strategizing, then theres still an allowance somewhere that they might be saying what they're doing. yes, its transparent, but i kinda, sorta, oh-god-do-i-wanna believe that he might go there with the intent of assesing it thoughtfully and come back saying something new and workable.

i made up my mind by the time the cali primary rolled around, but, and this is weird, recently i just dont fucking know. it's... too good. i saw a t-shirt for sale using the obama type saying "prepare to be disappointed", the sidebar reading, the sooner we accept that he isnt jesus then we can see that even the most inspiring politician is still a politician."

which is a great response to my sudden reservation about him. maybe it's that one pandering gesture too many. maybe its how he says contradicting statements with ease to differeing crowds. maybe because he's getting comfortable. maybe its the realization that their whole "lets just get a decent guy in office you guys" vibe is just another angle that a couple managers hit on brilliantly...

i dunno....

[BeautifulBurnout]

Originally Posted by dubman

i made up my mind by the time the cali primary rolled around, but, and this is weird, recently i just dont fucking know. it's... too good. i saw a t-shirt for sale using the obama type saying "prepare to be disappointed", the sidebar reading, the sooner we accept that he isnt jesus then we can see that even the most inspiring politician is still a politician."

Yeah. I feel there is a danger in that he is being put on a pedestal as "Saviour of Mankind" in much the same way Blair was in 1997. That is not to say that people shouldn't vote him in for all that, because as far as I can tell from this side of the Pond, he is the new broom that really does need to sweep clean. But if people idolise him too much, they will be sorely disappointed when he turns out to be human after all.

Where things started to go wrong for Blair was when he stopped listening to public opinion and did what he wanted to do anyway. Because of his immense majority in the House of Commons, he could effectively do whatever he wanted with impunity. He started to betray the core values of the people that voted him in and moved further and further in the direction of Big Business and Control. Had he stayed on his manifesto message, I have no doubt he would still be in power today and still be a popular leader.

I kind of hope that Obama gets in, but by the skin of his teeth, so that there isn't an overwhelming majority in the Senate (or Congress). That would keep him sharp and focussed, instead of enabling him to believe his own publicity that he is the New Messiah for the US.

[Sean]

As long as he's viewed realistically, then I doubt there'll be any big disappointments. Clearly there's a lot of excitement around Obama, but I've never personally heard any supporter of his say anything about viewing him as "Jesus", or perfect by any means. By that, I mean that for myself and all the people I know firsthand that support him, the general attitude is not one of idolatry - it's simply that Obama offers a net improvement for the country, while McCain, and until recently, Hillary offered a net decline. In McCain's case, because he wants to continue too many policies that have proven to be flawed, and in Hillary's case because she would've been crushed under the sea of controversy and drama that seems to perpetually surround the Clintons...largely of their own making.

So yeah, Obama's flawed, and he's said and done some things I don't like, but nothing I can say I've been surprised by. Certainly not enough to reverse my feeling that he'll be good for the country overall, while his opponents would be bad.

Or to put it another way, I'll be far more disappointed if he's not elected at all than I will be if he is elected and does a few things I don't like.

[Deckard]

Originally Posted by dubman

if they never, ever, ever, EVER cop to their cynical strategizing, then theres still an allowance somewhere that they might be saying what they're doing. yes, its transparent, but i kinda, sorta, oh-god-do-i-wanna believe that he might go there with the intent of assesing it thoughtfully and come back saying something new and workable.

i made up my mind by the time the cali primary rolled around, but, and this is weird, recently i just dont fucking know. it's... too good. i saw a t-shirt for sale using the obama type saying "prepare to be disappointed", the sidebar reading, the sooner we accept that he isnt jesus then we can see that even the most inspiring politician is still a politician."

which is a great response to my sudden reservation about him. maybe it's that one pandering gesture too many. maybe its how he says contradicting statements with ease to differeing crowds. maybe because he's getting comfortable. maybe its the realization that their whole "lets just get a decent guy in office you guys" vibe is just another angle that a couple managers hit on brilliantly...

i dunno....

I feel the same way (at least as far as I can, being an outsider in this). To some extent it'll be the natural cycle, the transition that takes place in a candidate when they move on from campaigning to the party -> campaigning to the country. But combine that with the reminder that, oh yeah, he IS still a politician, and in order to win, he IS going to have to compromise, dumb down, occasionally contradict, and pander - and I guess lots of his supporters will be feeling similar - and I think ultimately that's a useful thing.

Originally Posted by BeautifulBurnout

Yeah. I feel there is a danger in that he is being put on a pedestal as "Saviour of Mankind" in much the same way Blair was in 1997.

The Messiah! God yeah. The memory of being a 23 year old voting for Blair for the first time with such enthusiasm in 1997, and the subsequent long and painful kick in the guts (admittedly after a relatively good 2 year honeymoon period) remains with me. Politicians have always gone stale, and with the advent of the internet, I can only see that happening a lot quicker than ever. But you're right - absolutely no reason not to vote for him now.

[Deckard]

Originally Posted by Sean

As long as he's viewed realistically, then I doubt there'll be any big disappointments.

Precisely. And funnily enough (or perhaps not), my impression is that it's always been supporters of his opponents who've had a vested interest in using terms like Messiah and Second Coming and Cult Leader in order to dismiss him. Or news correspondents looking for easy soundbites.

[Sean]

Originally Posted by Deckard

Precisely. And funnily enough (or perhaps not), my impression is that it's always been supporters of his opponents who've had a vested interest in using terms like Messiah and Second Coming and Cult Leader in order to dismiss him. Or news correspondents looking for easy soundbites.

Yeah, that's exactly the impression I've gotten, too. It's primarily been used as a way to be dismissive of people who think he seems like a solid candidate.

[mmm skyscraper]

http://dyn.politico.com/printstory.c...E851454E822F1E

Jesse Jackson, Jr. on Obama getting the nomination:

I cried all night. I’m going to be crying for the next four years,” he said. “What Barack Obama has accomplished is the single most extraordinary event that has occurred in the 232 years of the nation’s political history. ... The event itself is so extraordinary that another chapter could be added to the Bible to chronicle its significance.”