It appears to me that the media may be on the verge of failing again. The coverage of Obama has been all about his large crowds, endorsements and campaign contributions. There is nary a note of skepticism in the media about his qualifications to be president. Hillary on the other hand has not been treated so kindly (to put it mildly.)

I'm asking you to believe. Not just in my ability to bring real change in Washington...I'm asking you to believe in yours.

I agree it's troubling, but Obama ain't the only one.  Anybody who is slavishly devoted to any of these piker candidates needs their head examined.

Also, being inspirational isn't a good quality in a candidate.

While looking at Raw Story today, there was a headline in teeny-tiny print that said: "Dean warns of "big" fight at convention--Clinton camp: $4M raised since Tuesday. Then in huge red print, right under the Clinton headline, it says "LIVE UPDATE: OBAMA DONATIONS BREAK $7.5M SINCE TUESDAY!"

It seems all the big blogs like Huffpost, Raw Story and AmericaBlog are all a part of the Obama cult. The only thing that Huffpost writes about Clinton is that she cried and something about a phone call from Chelsie on "The View".

Obama is about inspiration. Hillary is about knowledge and competence. That's why she wants debates and he does not. He can't keep up in that arena. His stump speech is always the same and it's getting tiresome.

First off, Obama has no problem having another debate.  He just doesn't want to do 4 more.  Honestly I don't see the value in doing more than one or two more.  It's pretty well established where they stand on the issues (right next to eachother).

Second, Obama has tremendous knowledge and competence.  Go look at an interview with him some time and tell me he doesn't know what he's talking about.  As for competence, he's demonstrated competence in the Illinois State Senate and his short time in the national Senate.  Also, I'm sorry but you don't build a successful national campaign without some competence.

The reason Hillary wants debates is because she's generally done better in them than Obama.  Though in the first one on one debate, it was pretty much a tie with some parts favoring either candidate.  Obama has never particularly liked debates and prefers meeting people one on one and giving speeches.  They both want to play to their strengths.  Duh?

His stump speeches actually do vary.  He does call on consistent themes, for sure.  Most critically, and in dispute of the "messianic" commentary, is that he's consistently calling on US to do it.  Not him.  He says, vote for me so that WE can do this.  Hillary says, vote for me so that I can do this.  Maybe it's all rhetoric, but Obama fundamentally gets something that hasn't been well understood since Kennedy: the American people like to be challenged.

We don't want our president to save us or anything like that.  What we want is our president to lead.  To point the way and challenge us to go there.  After 9/11, a common disappointment was that we weren't challenged.  We were told to go shop rather than asked to seriously help fix problems we had.  Hillary isn't out there challenging us to do anything, she's wanting us to put her into office so we can have her steady hand guide the ship of state while we get back to whatever it was we were doing.

Obama inspires some people one way; Hillary inspires others another way.  You prefer Hillary to Obama so his way gets trashed.

This is sliming by negative association that I expect from a lazy MSM not from an otherwise thoughtful blog.

I know you're reaching when you quote Joe Klein.  Klein can't even get his reasoning straight.  Obama has done well in caucus states like Minnesota and Iowa because he has brought many new voters to the process not firing up "hard core activists".

I witnessed the massive outpouring of new voters firsthand in St. Paul where hundreds and hundreds of voters (many college age and many new US citizens) overwhelmed the Junior High where the caucus was held.  Once the official ballots ran out, we ended up writing on choice on a piece of paper and dropping it in a box like we were handing out valentines in 2nd grade.

Sloppy Joe can't see that Hillary has done better with the traditional Democratic core and Obama has done better with the youth vote.  Even if he can see reality, it is inconvenient to his storyline so it must be ejected.

All this style over substance blather is pure media speculation.  Congratulations for participating in the Media Group Think.  No one can honestly say which of the two would be the better executive.  We can have opinions, but can't speak with any authority.  Each would have their own management style, but neither style would be guaranteed to succeed or to flop.

As for the debates, I haven't seen where either one has bested the other.  Both have proven their mettle.  I am disappointed that Clinton seems to have signed on for a Fox News debate.  Fox News is the propaganda arm of the GOP.  The Democratic Party doesn't need to give the enemy ratings and advertising dollars.

When the dust settles, you have to ask yourself, who do you want selecting the next Supreme Court Justice:  a Republican President of a Democratic President?

The only person responsible for this is Obama. However, since so many supporters (rightfully) feel it is their job to get between Obama and his detractors, it appears that you folks are in direct line to get hit with stuff aimed at him. It isn't personal, it's politics.

I've heard much less coverage of his legislative history and his current policies and stands. But, the NYTimes did do an article about one of his Senate legislative attempts--to require nuclear power plant operators to inform the public of leaks, based on some leaks of radiated cooling water into the groundwater and contaminating drinking water sources.

The article said Obama began with a strong language requiring the operators to inform the public, then, to gain Republican support (R's were in charge of the Senate at that time) he lowered the requirements to finally become voluntary compiance to be decided by the NRC and the operators.  

This seemed to be BushLite--corporate voluntary standards. Great.

But--is this article fair? Anyone knowledgeable about this issue know more? The NYTimes can be good--but they can also not be so good, so how's this article?

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/03/us/politics/03exelon.html?pagewanted=1&_r=1&hp

I'm reposting this because it was on an older thread and only got one reply--which noted, per the article, that while Obama did not get this legislation passed he said he did in a campaign appearance.  

Now, if Al Gore had made such a mistake all MCM hell would break loose. But, with our MCMers' lack of concern or attention to Obama's actual record, we get little input from them.

I woke up actually afraid we might end up with huge voters' remorse when the press finally did begin to explicate more on what he's done--or not done.

I mean really Jeralyn, I can't believe you would essentially label millions of democrats who support Barack Obama as being some kind of cultists.

I dont think so. On what basis can you claim that? They are both about knowledge and competence. Obama ADDS inspiration.

"That's why she wants debates and he does not."

I find it hard to believe that you don't understand that Hillary wants debates because she wants free media time, and because she is hoping against hope that the relatively less experienced Obama just might make a gaffe - something she is less likely to do.

"His stump speech is always the same"

Duh....thats why they call it a stump speech.

Its always the same because, unlike us political junkies, the actual voters never hear it until the show comes to their town. This is news?

"His words aren't gospel "

Thank you. We peasants have such trouble figuring things like that out.

"I hope the hype stops soon. Maybe if more of us write about it, it will."

Obama's appeal is rooted more in a religious context than a political one. I studied theology once upon a time - essentially, he's a secular preacher masquerading as a politician. Since I already have my own religious faith in place, that explains why listening to him makes me uncomfortable. The language, gestures, audience responses, all remind me of being in church - and I believe WHOLEHEARTEDLY in the separation of church and state.

Hillary's appeal is rooted much more strongly in the pragmatic. She reaches people who want to see someone who can just DO THE JOB. Ironically, though, I see her very clearly motivated by a call to serve. I'm not sure what motivates him.

The problem with Obama's model is that he IS about himself - his ideals, his vision, his strategy, his candidacy.

The truly great preachers I've heard have always been about something larger and greater than themselves - justice, peace, truth, love for all people - you name it. They are incidental to the message - the message is what matters.

With Obama, I feel as though it IS a messianic sort of thing, that he, or, at least, his supporters, believe he is the One True Candidate who can bring a new Golden Age to America and all of our problems will just go dancing off into the sunset. It smacks of idolatry. (This is not to say that I think he believes this, but it's difficult to avoid peoples' projections). The anger I get from people who think I should support him is much like the anger I used to get when I was confronted with those whose theology is different (read "more narrow") than my own.

It's actually a major relief to finally figure out why this "movement" has been making me so uncomfortable.

His speechwriters are 26, 26, and 30. The head speechwriter is one of the 26-year-olds. It is their job to make Obama sound mature, and they succeed: they make him sound like a naive 26-year-old.

You are divisive.

His supporters swarm on a blogger or comment that even remotely questions him. Some are genuine, but many (not this site) are highly personal and inflammatory. They will seek to drown out the voice. That's why I'm less impressed with all his fundraising -- its the same easy, point, click, and shut Hillary up.

I've stated all along that his more rabid supporters would begin to undo him. At the time, I felt sorry for him. But now as I see more of him, I understand why that behavior has continued. He has not taken any steps to "curb their enthusiasm."

Hillary needs to carry her message out beyond the Net. I spoke with a friend today - who's tech savvy but busy with a young child and job - who is just starting to pay attention in anticipation of upcoming VA election. There are lots of folks like her who are still making up their minds and so are two to three news cycles behind. She needs to reach them.

As for the vapors over you quoting Klein. For god's sake, Obama has been living on the compliments fed by some of the most reactionary columnists in the country. But I suppose for him that is him reaching out.

With this sort of power, don't you find it odd that Obama is not calling on his millions of fans to rebuild New Orleans or become more active in helping the homeless or to donate some of their time to charities?  He runs on being the great community organizer, but the only thing he's done so far is organize people to come to rallies and to donate online.

The pattern repeats endlessly, and sickeningly for those who are inspired by The Clinton's: destroy, destroy, destroy.

Obama clearly has charisma and clearly excites Americans whom Hillary should want. Your answer: knock him down. He is too religious, too cultlike, too this and not enough that.

Obama's crowds are large, passionate, and include all races and ages. Well so what?

Somebody's wife has 20 older women friends just as passionate about Hillary but they stay home.

Somebody else's 23 year old son thinks Obama is mediocre.

The Gods first make crazy those whom they want to destroy.

And many of you are crazy with The Clinton Defense Disease ("everyone does whatever we find disgusting in them"; "everyone else is worse than the Clinton's"; "they deserve to be president because they are so smart and well-informed"...)

Obama's appeal to people who think politics is a dog's game is a good thing. Hillary should want the enthusiasm he brings and so should all of us.

Yesterday I watched Obama's Democratic national convention speech again, and was again baffled as to what was so incredibly inspiring about it. I felt like it followed a cliché structure that I am convinced has been followed in many a high school graduation speech, let alone political speech. Here is the mode I created for a successfully inspiring speech: Summary of Generic Inspiring Speech a.k.a. Obama's Democratic National Convention Speech a.k.a. What it takes these days to wet liberal's collective panties 1) Begin on a personal note. Talk about family roots, a mixed/poor/immigrant/working class family that was somehow able to achieve that good old American dream. End this section with the generic, unproved, self perpetuating assumption that this phenomenon (success from nothing) is only possible in America. 2) Insert: Praise of fore fathers (extension of the "Only in America" idea), quote Declaration of Independence, or Constitution here: "All men are created equal...liberty and the pursuit of happiness" etc. 3) Message about needing good politics and there being hard work ahead (IMPORTANT: make sure this message is bipartisan). 4) Give random specific examples of hardships suffered by "Average Americans" due to poor government.* This proves you have talked to the working Joe.** * Do not forget to mention that it does take some "pulling yourself up from your own boot straps" type hard work to get things done, emphasize personal responsibility (appeals to moderates and swing voters). ** Make sure this part is really "homey" and "feel good" mention Americana things like diners, and car factory workers. 5) Insert support of Presidential Candidate here. 6) Anti-current war/Pro-good war message: basically use same tactic as #4 except with examples relating to soldiers. 7) Encourage the American people to be empathetic of others (this can be a good chance to mention religion, "I am my brother's keeper", but do not forget to mention you are the keeper of sisters too). 8) Now bring it up, you've been holding it back waiting for this, but you can say it, "We are ONE America", this brings back the idea of bipartisanism. Make sure to defend that idealistic notion of "one America" after the fact by decrying cynicism and praising hope and faith (again brings back in the good ole Christians). 9) Finally end speech with sentences that are structured likewise: I believe.....I believe....or try, I have faith....I have faith....or maybe even...I hope....I hope....Any way you cut it makes appropriate, safe, and lovely allusions to the ever praised never criticized, unobjectionable Dr. MLK Jr. Applause ensues.

I find it amusing -- okay, irritating -- that Obama supporters have to come HERE and bash posters HERE.  It's as if they have no place else to go for affirmation when they actually have the entirety of the mainstream blogosphere and the mainstream media.

Honest discussion is one thing.  Bashing the messenger is quite another.  But of course they do it all the time at DailyKos with support of leadership.  Did the non-Obamas finally dry up over there and they have to start their bashing over here?

Jeralyn can't post an article on her own web site that agrees with many of our own instant reactions to the Obamamania without getting flack?  

From an article about cults, here's an interesting cult trait that might apply here:

"The cult tends to be totalitarian in its control of the behavior of its members. Cults are likely to dictate in great detail what members wear, eat, when and where they work, sleep, and bathe-as well as what to believe, think, and say.

How about acting non-cult-like and just ignoring it all and going back to KOS, or Huffington, or TPM, or Americablog, or MSNBC.  Or better yet, come up with an interesting argument or an article to point to how cult-like Hillary's following is.

I was once troll-bombed because I mistakenly said on KOS that Obama voted 'present' on Kyl-Lieberman...when actually he didn't show up for the vote at all...(which IMHO is worse, but I just ignored it all and left.)  That is the kind of thing a cult or mob would do.

To tell you the truth, I live in a state that will soon have a primary and both Obama and Clinton will be here.  I'd love more than anything to attend an Obama rally, but I'm honestly AFRAID to go because of fear I'll meet up with the authoritarian cult-like faction I see on DailyKos.

I also find it odd that normally rational people take a politician's campaign promises as a guarantee. Content over inspiration? As far as I can remember most campaign promises are never kept.

I only found this info here in a comment (by Kathy? can't recall).  I posted it a couple place--and not one response to this actual example of how Obama practices reaching across the aisle and bipartisanship.

I'm worried!