How Do You Solve a Problem Like Obama?
|
|
|
|
|
|
How Do You Solve a Problem Like Obama?
Barack Obama's quick rise through the political ranks means he's something of an unknown quantity -- for voters, but also for the opposition. Political analyst Jonathan Wilcox says it's hard to know how to run against a candidate like Obama. But he thinks McCain's team may have hit on something in sticking Obama with the "celebrity" label. As Obama becomes the official Democratic nominee for president, we ask Wilcox about the campaign challenges ahead. Wilcox is a former speechwriter for California Governor Pete Wilson; he teaches a course on "celebrity and society" at the USC Annenberg School for Communication.
|
|
8 COMMENTS SO FAR
|
August 28, 2008
11:59 AM
|
Tony Burt said:
"L'audace, l'audace, toujours l'audace." (Frederick the Great)
The rather humorous ads depicting Senator Obama as a celebrity are understandable given the fact that he or his handlers have made him so unapproachable. This is particularly galling given his flimsy resume. He rejected the invitation for 10 town hall meetings each an hour long proposed by Senator McCain in which the public would have been able to judge for themselves the two contenders side by side. Clearly McCain who is not as physically attractive (not at all telegenic) as Obama is not afraid of letting the public compare and contrast the views of both candidates.
The recent interview in Orange County California by Rick Warren perhaps revealed the reason for Obama's apparent timidity. He (or his handlers) presumably decided that the danger of revealing his own inadequacies and inexperience in such a format was too much of a risk, better to hide behind the TelePrompter where he can be fed the script rather than speaking extemporaneously and revealing his own ignorance.
Add also the the settings that his handlers use, he goes to Berlin speaks in front of a grandiose Victory Column glorifying Prussian military history. There he reviews American sins, to hysterical applause from 200,000 Berliners, eager for the free music and beer to follow. Tonight in a football stadium we will see his acceptance speech before a set created with the Doric columns reminiscent of a Greek temple. He is clearly more of a celebrity than a serious politician.
With a mere 143 working days spent in the Senate and 20 years of regular attendance at his church genuflecting before the odious Rev. Wright it appears that he has put in more man-hours on Black Liberation Theology theory than learning about how the US government operates.
Senator Obama should be way ahead at this stage but this week has seen polls showing that essentially the race is even. This is probably because severe doubts remain about his suitability for office. His handlers must know this. So they are desperately puffing his résumé, padding his accomplishments and claiming the work of others to reassure voters that he is up to the duties of the Oval Office. It may work. However, it could also backfire, if so voters will not tolerate candidates whose opinion of the citizenry is so low that they have the audacity to think they can get away with fooling them.
Cheers
Tony
|
 (0)  (0)
|
|
August 30, 2008
2:31 PM
|
mumbofish said:
I know for whom I'm voting for on election day..but the delegates all behind Mr. Obamma brother me, Senator Obama has to convince me that he doesn't represent special interest. Senator Clinton did have most of the avarage Joe and Jo Ann voters which leads me to ask..if the canidate who would of been Hillary Clinton were African American and female where would the delegates stand then? We got to get out of Iraq, that's where I stand and our debt is owned by other countries..no buena!!!
|
(0) (0)
|
|
September 2, 2008
11:32 AM
|
jrussell said:
If all the people with all the experience can put this country in the state that it is in, you have to wonder what someone with little or no experience can do to it.
|
(0) (0)
|
|
September 2, 2008
3:18 PM
|
Tony Burt said:
Perhaps Mr. or Mrs. Russell can elucidate. In what state does he consider this country?
The last time I looked very many millions more folks were trying come here to live (and many succeed legally and otherwise) compared to those trying to leave.
The so called National Debt when viewed as a ratio to the size of the economy is considerably more healthy than most comparable economies, eg Japan, France, Germany, Britain and those infamous profligate spenders Switzerland.
Certainly inexperienced folks might come to the fore if they have good fresh ideas. Obama's seems bereft of new ideas simply trotting out old tried and rejected platitudes. Furthermore hiding behind his teleprompter and his unwillingness to subject himself to any exposure to critical examination by the public speaks to his fears. If he is not confident about himself why should the electorate be.
Mr. or Mrs. Mumbofish. Assuming this is not your real name, I must congratulate you for choosing such an apt pseudonym.
Tony Burt
|
(0) (0)
|
|
September 3, 2008
9:33 AM
|
jrussell said:
In the state of inflation, rapid during the recent year, food, fuel, houseing mortgage disaster, may not affect Santa Monica but sure affects Reno, NV. It's true, maybe many people are trying to leave their country for one reason or another. What are they leaving for and do they expect to find it here? What they might expect is completely different from what they might get. Of course if your running for your life, poverty in America might be one step above what you had in your own country, but if your an economic refugee, beware, your college degree from your own country might not be good enough to get you the job of your dreams!
As to our national debt relative to other countries and demographics. Just because it isn't as high per capita as other countries with comparable economies dosn't mean we should continue to spend money we don't have. Last I heard those countries aren't doing too well either and if their economies weren't doing as well as ours then, I wonder what there doing now. This is possibly a global recession we're dealing with.
If I were the inexperienced Obama going on an international tour of contries we have relationships with and discovered how complex those relationships are I might have to take some time to generate new ideas as well. Inexperience can be the wellspring of new ideas. What we don't need is the same ideas that are turning this country into what I feel is a third world country. Sure, I can imagine Obama might be fearful to lay out his ignorance before all. Dosn't speak to his confidence though, seems confident enough to me and I'm sure his cabinet will be filled with folks who will help him run this country in what may be a better way than the current administration for which I'm willing to give the chance because even though it can get worse then it is, why should it.
|
(0) (0)
|
|
October 15, 2008
11:53 AM
|
penguin said:
The problem I see in this country is not Obama, it is the bigoted right wing ignorant McCain supporters. The question is, are these people mentally sound to vote?
When asked "Do you think Obama is a terrorist?" A woman said "yes." and When asked, "Why?" The woman said, "Look at his name?"
Another McCain supporter when asked the same question said, "He (Obama) has the blood lines of a terrorist." There was a lot more ignorance, racism, and hatred displayed on behalf of the right, on a video I watched. I hope JPR will cover that video and get the public to respond.
My question to the right is can you defend that? The usual answers to questions the right does not want to answer is "What about the other party? or The other party said this?" Let me remind you- we are not in Elementary School where children tend to point their fingers at someone else when they do something wrong. I would like to see coverage of this and would gladly provide the video I speak of.
|
(0) (0)
|
|
October 18, 2008
11:43 AM
|
Tony Burt said:
The question posed in the first posting was:
Why "He (Obama) rejected the invitation for 10 townhall meetings each an hour long proposed by Senator McCain in which the public would have been able to judge for themselves the two contenders side by side"? These events would have been more free wheeling interactions with ordinary people rather than the three carefully contrived media events recently aired.
Well, if any further proof was needed, we now have it. The reason why the Joe-the-plumber exchange was so revealing is because of Obama's spontaneous "spread-the-wealth" admonition. This is surely closer to the truth for Obama than many Americans had hitherto realized.
Ignoring the scurrilous "Palinisation" of Joe, the messenger is not relevent. Think about the revelation of Senator Obama's spontaneous response to Mr. Wurzelbacher (AKA Joe).
"I think when you spread the wealth around, it's good for everybody."
By now everyone knows about the demise of attempts by governments at wealth redistribution. That is almost everyone, unless they recently attended or are currently attending University, in which case their ignorance is understandable. Dozens of countries have tried socialism during the last century, and not one ever succeeded. In fact they were all miserable failures. The only ones that started building wealth in their countries were the ones that have moved toward capitalism and free markets like China. Those still mired in socialism like North Korea and Cuba are economic basket cases. All the nations of the developed world have figured out that socialism doesn't work. Possibly the only people that still think it's a good idea are Barack Obama and the American Left.
Indeed should a "President" Obama ever attend a G7 meeting he will sit down with:
Sarkozy of France, Merkel of Germany, Berlusconi of Italy conservatives all.
Harper conservative PM of Canada recently re-elected and Taro Aso also conservative, Japan's prime minister. Even Gordon Brown of Great Britain, whose Labor Govt. long ago eschewed their socialist roots and anyway look likely to be deposed by the conservative Tories in the next election.
Surely Obama's oft stated refrain that the current economic crisis proves that Capitalism doesn't work, will be a little out of place amongst these august leaders of the Industrial economies.
It also doesn't make any sense that when one names the litany of unsavory characters in Obama's past… and present… who advise and counsel him that sycophants will say "I know, I know, but I'm voting for him anyway". Listen to the nonsense from the majority of callers to the Exchange, they will waffle on about his body language, his demeanor, his "inner" calm, his aura, his elegance rarely attempting to critically analyse his views.
When folks talk irrationally it follows that he or she isn't thinking rationally. When a whole group of people, collectively, are not thinking rationally, it means they've been dazzled, enthralled, captivated, mesmerized, and charmed by the eloquence of someone… dare I say a messiah… who promises them that all they need to do is follow Him and he will lead them to the Promised Land!
That is the definition of a CULT! That's why Obama-ism never made sense to many of us, but now it does - perfect sense. That's why all the rationality in the world won't help. Cults are not democratic… cults don't like it when any of their followers want to leave… cults have been known to kill people coming from the "outside" in an attempt to preserve the cult's way of life… eventually they become unhinged and deeply paranoid. Think… Jim Jones!
Voting for Obama is voting for nothing less than voting for the leader of a CULT to become the next President. Trying to explain the implications of an Obama/Reid/Pelosi Politburo to the cultists is to be met with the usual vacuous stares, or outright hostility.
So how to campaign against a cult leader? Pick the most vulnerable point in the core belief and hammer away at it, again and again. You won't get through to the true believers, but at least we can get through to the ones on the fence and the potential converts.
The central theme of Obama's candidacy -
INCOME REDISTRIBUTION.
Cheers
Tony Burt
|
(0) (0)
|
|
May 9, 2010
1:44 PM
|
RichardTurkJr said:
Verify the legal votes cast and you'll quickly find Obama did not win the election. The votes he won by were cast by illegal migrants and ghosts that don't exist. Not a single one of the fraudulent ACORN votes cast were ever removed from the final tally. No one ever verified who was and wasn't a legal U.S. Citizen nor who was thus, "a legally registered voter". Illegal migrants were assigned the task of registering all other illegal migrants as voters. The "sanctuary cities" of the Inland Empire Region of Southern California were the greatest offenders of voter fraud and this fact has never been reported by anyone.
|
(0) (0)
|
|
|
|
|
Post your comment
|
You must be a subscriber and logged in to post a comment. Login | Register
|
|
|
|
