Bridget vents about Obama!
Needless to say, when I let a colleague read the lede of my Pajamas Media column today while still writing it, he was like, "I know where you're going with this!" Read on:
"I once read a passage by a Catholic priest explaining how people get hooked into new religious movements: First, the would-be church member was brought into a welcoming environment with upbeat music and palpable excitement. The person would accept their new faith easily as the flock of church loyalists seemed to provide sunny hope and instant friendship, filling some sort of void.
As time goes by and life’s normal ups and downs hit, then comes disillusionment when the member realizes that their faith is based on that emotional high, a high they’re not able to sustain 24-7 or while away from the group.
After disillusionment and the breakup, the onetime convert is back to square one.
As we’ve watched support for Barack Obama evolve from an ambitious challenge of Hillary Clinton to messianic mania, we’ve seen his followers increasingly less concerned with talking points on foreign policy, etc., than his ability to whip a crowd into a feel-good frenzy. We have voters inspired by the tone in which Obama speaks, how his skin color in the White House would make history, and how Michelle Obama thinks the emotional tidal wave is a step forward for America: 'For the first time in my adult lifetime, I am really proud of my country.'
Yet for emotion, on the left or right, to be the deciding factor in such a key election puts the United States in a very precarious spot.
In last week’s Wall Street Journal, Stephen Hayes opined that Republicans busy criticizing the Obama campaign for leaning on hopeful rhetoric need to remember that back in the day Ronald Reagan was criticized for being too reliant on uplifting speeches.
'The assumption behind much of this criticism is that because Mr. Obama gives a good speech he cannot do substance,' Hayes wrote. 'This is wrong. Mr. Obama has done well in most of the Democratic debates because he has consistently shown himself able to think on his feet.'
Actually, he’s done well because Clinton consistently gets nailed with the hard questions first. Then, as he did with the question on Dmitry Medvedev in last week’s Ohio MSNBC debate, he can mold his answer off hers (though skipping that apparently cumbersome pronunciation of his name). But the supposition that this makes Obama’s rhetoric passable to run the White House is off-base. ..."
AMWAY Politics.
Posted by: Reaps | March 04, 2008 at 04:32 PM