In response to the initial post, I would say the empty, non-policy-related Obama criticism on A2K far surpasses any empty non-policy-related Obama worship you'll find on A2K. Even without Miller's totally awesome, groundbreaking threads (we get it, his middle name is Hussein, and therefore he is a tyrannical Iraqi dictator; also, you're horrible).
"On A2K" being the operative qualifier.
Giving this more thought, I have the following dilemma. You can create a rock star two ways.
First, you can hype the heck out of them, creating an image of a rock star even though there is nothing behind it. Think Milli Vanilli or the Spice Girls. This is where the Bush analogy comes from. Not much there, but he'd be a good drinking buddy and he's got some name recognition. Hype him up, put him in front of the monster political machine and convince everyone he's the real thing.
The second way to create a rock star is to have someone with exceptional talent rise from the pack. Maybe a talent scout sees the potential and helps them break out, but clearly the talent is carrying the day.
So which is it with Obama? Is, as some have suggested, Obama another Bush? Personally I say no. He is not at the head of a monster political machine steam rolling down dissent. If anything, he is against that machine. While he is a favored son of the Democratic party, the machine is run by the Clintons.
I think the better comparison is Obama to Bill Clinton. The "boy governor" was a hot commodity in Democratic circles, but he was not the favored candidate for the Democratic nomination in '92 and climbed a steep hill to get there. Personally, I think Clinton was a fair president who made several missteps in his first two years in office and spent the next six keeping the Republicans in check and working on foreign policy. I hope for better from Obama, but I think he's burned some bridges with the Clintons and his access to Clinton's personal experience will be limited. Still, I don't think he shares some of the weaknesses of the Clintons either, so it should be interesting.
My take at this point is that Obama is not a creation of the media, the media is being pulled along in his wake. That combined with my concerns that Clinton will actively continue and widen the partisan divide that has characterized US politics for 15 years has me voting for Obama this year. Should he lose out to Clinton, then I'll vote for her in the general election, and hope for a new face in 2016.
nimh has posted some interesting numbers over the months about how the American MSM has disproportionately covered Obama, and with what type of bias.
(once again, I dream of a media forum for A2K)
ehBeth
ehBeth wrote:nimh has posted some interesting numbers over the months about how the American MSM has disproportionately covered Obama, and with what type of bias.
(once again, I dream of a media forum for A2K)
Me, too. If we send Craven a big box of chocolate, do you think he will give us a media forum?
BBB
This thread should be titled: The Media Creation that Obama is a Media Creation
Gargamel wrote:In response to the initial post, I would say the empty, non-policy-related Obama criticism on A2K far surpasses any empty non-policy-related Obama worship you'll find on A2K. Even without Miller's totally awesome, groundbreaking threads (we get it, his middle name is Hussein, and therefore he is a tyrannical Iraqi dictator; also, you're horrible).
"On A2K" being the operative qualifier.
"Sleeper Cell" is the operative phrase.
phoenix
Krauthammer is, as walter notes, an absolutely untrustworthy voice here because of his is deep political affiliations and partisan ideas.
To use him as a source is precisely comparable to taking James Carville's words about Giuliani as accurate or balanced or unbiased or truthful. That would be foolish.
Quote:blatham- I know that Krautheimer has his bias, but that is besides the point. The thing is, when he set down in words is what has been bothering me for a long time. Had I been as erudite as him, I might have written something similar weeks ago.
Well, if you wish to learn about Obama, read his book. Or turn to sources who are not setting out, with a partisan electoral agenda, to purposefully make you think poorly of Obama.
Ok Phoenix, what objective criteria do you believe we should use to determine if Obama is a media creation or if the media is reporting Obama's rise? I tried to do this a few posts ago, but I've given it more thought and compared it to Bush's and Bill Clinton's rises to clarify my thoughts. My key questions:
1. Was the candidate anointed the front runner before the first vote?
2. Did the candidate have a significant fundraising edge before the first vote was cast?
3. Does the candidate have significant control of the levers of the party leadership?
4. Did the candidate get significant press exposure before the first vote was cast?
5. Did the candidate start with significant backing from the traditional party organizing bodies?
6. Has the candidate received less critical review from the media?
Many of these questions are based on the candidates' positions before the first vote because I believe that once the ball is rolling, people start to react to actual data, debates, etc as well as spin, but before the voting starts, it is all PR and spin. These questions yield interesting results, not only with the existing candidates, but with those of past years and those who dropped out as well. If your candidate answers no to all six questions, his name might be Dodd, Biden or Paul. If you can answer five as yes, you might be H. Clinton or Guilliani. Both of those got critical press, but otherwise were in good shape. If you can answer all six as yes, your man is President Bush. Bill Clinton could only answer one as yes. I think Obama could only get one yes (on less than critical press) and two "somewhats" (good starting money compared to everyone but Clinton and moderate press exposure, better than everyone else but Clinton).
"Barack!!!! - Don't think. Feel!!!!"
nappyheadedhohoho wrote:"Barack!!!! - Don't think. Feel!!!!"
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!
(not funny)
nappyheadedhohoho wrote:"Barack!!!! - Don't think. Feel!!!!"
Is this some kind of ethnic joke?
((I don't get it))
It's from an article about Michelle Obama. It's something she said to him during some strategy session. I'm never sure what people who quote it are trying to prove, especially in this context -- that Obama's too cerebral? That his tendency is to overthink things? Doesn't that contradict the "empty inspiration" thingie?
There are a lot of very intelligent people, Sozobe for example, who are strong Obama supporters.
It is funny the subtle insults that are being leveled in the attempt to stop what is turning out to be a very effective political campaign.
sozobe wrote:It's from an article about Michelle Obama. It's something she said to him during some strategy session. I'm never sure what people who quote it are trying to prove, especially in this context -- that Obama's too cerebral? That his tendency is to overthink things? Doesn't that contradict the "empty inspiration" thingie?
Absolutely, and while his wife is a big time thinker as well she does help balance him out. Good partnerships tend to do that. I am sure that most people use the quote as a put down, to imply that he is whipped (as was the quote about her mandating that this was his only run for prez), but it makes me more wanting to vote for him. It speaks to his foundations.
sozobe wrote:It's from an article about Michelle Obama. It's something she said to him during some strategy session. I'm never sure what people who quote it are trying to prove, especially in this context -- that Obama's too cerebral? That his tendency is to overthink things? Doesn't that contradict the "empty inspiration" thingie?
It is an attempt to equate Michelle's comment to her husband about his tendacy to be stoic in his speeches to the accusation that his campaign is all about "feelings" and not substantive thinking.
