Barack Obama, the Facebook candidate, has been stumbling in trying to move his campaign into the real world. The problem is his lack of real positions.
I know this is a minority view. The press has recently been full of commentary about how Barack Obama needs to "re-introduce himself" because American voters don't really "know" him. And sure enough, last night there were Michelle and the kids, reintroducing themselves on the Orwellian scale that national American politics demands, their scrubbed and smiling faces looking up at the man of the family blown up to super human proportions on a giant screen, then multiplied on millions of screens around the country and even the world.
How is it that a man who has faced more intense media exposure any politician on planet earth must now be "introduced?" More than any other modern candidate, Obama has based his campaign on his own life narrative, one that he himself has very consciously crafted. This is the candidate who wrote not one but two autobiographies (after he decided to run, he revised his already carefully constructed personal narrative into a presidential version 2.0).
Obama is the Facebook candidate. The Facebook connection has usually been mentioned in a positive light. As members of the Facebook generation like to say, Obama "gets it" when it comes to the social-networking power of the Internet, and his campaign has taken Internet-based electioneering to new heights. But the computer monitor glow that illuminates his campaign can also cast the candidate in a less flattering light.
Summing up his speeches, historian Fred Siegel aptly noted that Obama has "a rhetoric rather than a philosophy." Indeed. He has a developed rhetoric, a finely crafted personal narrative, and a dashing image. Personal narrative + rhetoric + image is what you do on Facebook. You craft your own little narrative to introduce yourself. You style it with a rhetoric that hopefully distinguishes yourself from the hordes. And you add as finely honed an image as you can muster given your circumstances. Later, when the details of your off-line life get too complicated, you go back and redo your profile, "re-introduce" yourself.
The degree to which Obama relies on this package of narrative, rhetoric and image, regardless of the situation in which he finds himself, can be startling. "People of Berlin, people of the world, this is our moment. This is our time," he intoned to 200,000 Germans. Say what? It's his peak rhetorical flourish on the stump in the States, where people will actually vote in a crucial election in a few months. But "people of the world, this is our time," means precisely... nothing.
On Facebook relationships are often limited to what would be considered introductions in the real world: "hi, this is me, this is my image and narrative, will you be my friend?, hey thanks," and on to the next introduction. And when you revise your profile, everyone can go back and be "re-introduced" to the revised You.
This is essentially what Obama did after securing the nomination with his sharp swing to the right. He revised his profile and re-introduced himself. Now he is apparently going to re-re-introduce himself before 75,000 in Denver.
At the risk of utter heresy, I would like to suggest that at this point Obama has been sufficiently introduced. His problem is that, as he has gone from one introduction to another, he has kicked the legs out from under his original appeal. Often this problem is mistakenly referred to in the media as a "lack of specifics:" he needs to "flesh out the details" of policies American voters are supposedly in the dark about. This after how many primary debates? How many position papers and talking points on his various web sites?
The problem is not that Obama has not been specific. The problem is that the specifics keep changing as he revises his profile. The title line of his early profile as "A Different Kind of Politician." Central to this was his support of campaign financing reform to "get the money out of politics." But he ditched all that when it became clear he could likely raise more money than any candidate in history. He wanted to return the rule of law to the US and promised to filibuster legislation that legalized the unconstitutional electronic surveillance the Bush administration had begun under the cover of the nebulous "war on terror." But then he changed his mind and instead of filibustering against it, he voted for it. With McCain running around the country squawking "Drill here and drill now," he drew a line in the sand against offshore oil drilling, then announced he might change his mind. He has fudged on so many programmatic points that when, most recently, he backed away from his pledge to extend Social Security payroll taxes and raise the capital gains tax, it was hardly noticed.
There has bee no shortage of specifics. The problem is that so many of the specifics were very specifically jettisoned.
All this was spun as a savvy turn toward the center after wrapping up the nomination. Unhappy progressives who had been the core activists of his grassroots primary campaign were told to grow up and face the facts that this is how real elections are won in this country.
But, surprise! Obama's fall in the polls and McCain's rise date from exactly this moment. Now that he is no longer the Different Kind of Politician, who is he? He is coming into the convention with his resplendent image, well-tailored personal narrative, and soaring rhetoric, but no one knows what he really stands for beyond his own ambition.
More than any other candidate, Obama is running not on what he would do but who he is. The paradox is that he insists all the while that the success of his candidacy shows that who one is no longer matters. There you have, splashed across the video screens that are mirrors of yet other video screens, what academics call the self-reflexivity of the post-modern.
The one time Obama has risen above his Facebook campaign was when he was forced to address race relations in America in the wake of the Jeremiah Wright debacle. After trying to wiggle out of the tight spot he was being cornered into for weeks, he turned and addressed the issue head on and gave the speech of his life. As a result, he won the Democratic primary.
But addressing race relations in America comes more naturally to this incredibly charismatic but equally cautious candidate than committing himself to policies that he would be identified with. It is just not in his nature. But it is time.
No Senator, please don't re-re-introduce yourself. We know the whole story. Please, just tell us three things you are really going to do. That you are not going to budge an inch on. That you will stand or fall on. That will still be there when you are re-re-reintroduced, in version 3.0
Better to give a few options of how he might achieve his goals.
Personally, I am betting on the fact that his true and original agenda will be firmly put in place once he gets in office and if he has to placate to those more conservative and fearful voters who went with Bush two times over to get into the White House I accept that he has to do this.
I guess the stakes are too high in this election. Obama is the dem candidate and I'm voting for the ticket because I believe many good things will get done, especially if the Dems have the majority in Congress.
Bush 2.0 for 4-8 years in the White House simply WILL NOT DO!
Why do you and the media keep singing the same tune of BO: 'changing policies', 'no specifics, high rhetoric' etc?.....If you like sound bites like 'drill here drill now'.. then just make one yourself...8 yrs of dumbing down the voters seem to have swayed you to justifying soundbites based on your argument.
With your article who exactly are you trying to influence? I mean what is the purpose/objective of your article?
If you think McCain has better policies for Americans then he will be the POTUS. If he wins on having better sound bites then ..great another 8 yrs of misery....don't blame Obama...blame the American public.
That's interesting. I guess this site doesn't exist:
Blueprint for Change
http://www.barackobama.com/issues/
And I guess this one isn't floating out there:
Barack Obama on the Issues
http://www.ontheissues.org/Barack_Obama.htm
And I guess I never saw this:
McCain's Campaign Suffers from a Paper Gap
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0708/12215.html
I guess I made all of that up. I guess the literally 30 seconds worth of googling it took to find those three rebuttals to your argument was actually a grueling, impossible task.
And I DEFINITELY didn't read The Audacity of Hope, which DEFINITELY wasn't jam packed with policies and positions. No, I must have imagined it.
His opponent (the one suffering from a "paper gap") is the one who states positions like "I condemn remarks that are anyway viewed as anti-anything." PHEW! The specificity almost killed me there John!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SaDV-fUoVfs
Or that we must defeat evil. WHOA! If only we had realized it was that easy. All of human history, the age old struggle of good against evil, and all we had to do was declare we are going to defeat it! Man, do I feel stupid for not having thought of it earlier.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Yw-3rnU4Tk
Obama has to reintroduce himself because idiots like you keep lying about him.
This is probably one of the best articles ever. Seriously, why has no one pointed out how odd it is for a man who has done ABSOLUTELY NOTHING but run for President to have written TWO autobiographies...?
For example, yes, Obama opposes offshore drilling. But he supports a comprehensive energy plan that takes into account alternative sources of energy. So, as a compromise to get that passed, he said he might agree to some offshore drilling. Making adjustments for the greater good, get it?
See we're not electing a dictator who always gets his way. We're electing a president who will have to work with Congress to get things done. Not sure how familiar you are with the way government works.
Obama did not write 2 autobiographies. One was an autobiography. One was his thoughts on how to get America back on track. If you had bothered to look into that at all instead of just blabbing without knowing facts, you would know that.
Right now a strong majority of Americans wants some kind of progressive/liberal action from DC whether it's health care, the environment, labor, class, etc. And the Democratic candidates are all running AWAY from those positions as fast as they can.
Obama is no exception. Having watched the GOP crash and burn to the point where their own analysis is that their party's "brand" is like unsalable dog food Obama comes out for FISA, the death penalty, faith based initiative, getting vetted by a church, and starts rolling back his (slightly more) progressive tax positions.
And he loses his lead.
It's almost like there's a lesson to be learned here.
Dear Democrats, AMERICA is awake. Why aren't you?
Knock 'em dead, Barack !
Knock 'em dead, Barack !
Creative writing is all fine and good, but "critically supportive" is a silly term that I'll add to my list of oxymorons. You're either critical or supportive. People trying to be both simultaneously gave us eight years of Bush.
really?
All they're doing is creating a mess, like guests who overstayed their welcome.
None of us have any idea what kind of state this country will be in by Jan. 09.
Obama still has policy issues and positions on his site:
It would have been interesting for YOU dear writer to go thru them one by one and say what you thought of them.
At any rate, no one is asking McCain for specifics. Clinton ran as a straight up progressive in '92,
but wasn't all that progressive.
But most of all - YOU HAVE NO IDEA WHAT OBAMA IS GOING TO SAY THURSDAY !!!
Why not wait until afterward, instead of prejudging?
Obama campaign insists on him running on his personality, his judgment, fairness, high-mindedness and so on. This has made the campaign all about Obama and it has made him an actual issue so the repubs are sort of justified in attacking him. I don't even think it has started in earnest yet. The more Obama and the repubs make this election about Obama the harder it will be to win. Citizens want this election to be about them and many are wary of this message:
1. a DC outsider, doing politics differently
2. morally better than the previous president
3. a man of deep obvious faith, apparently chosen
4. a unifier
5. brings hope and change
These are exactly what Bush ran on and citizens just don't believe the advertising anymore. They want to see the record. Obama has a very short and, honestly, spotty record. His reversals (or super flip flops) are calling his character and honesty into question.
Also agree with nlb and congress is just rubberstamping dems. Come on, congress, stop giving power to the admin branch of govt! Take power back and re-introduce checks and balances! Congress is a failure of leadership.
Obama is a bought-and-paid-for corporate candidate, but so is Clinton and so is McCain. We have no choice. There will be no change of any policies, no matter who is elected, because all of the people we see as our political leaders are actually puppets doing the bidding of the ultra-wealthy. All of the conventioneering, the posters and ads, are all just for theatric effect. No matter who gets elected, there they will be in January of 2009, drilling for oil anywhere and everywhere, cutting taxes for the wealthy, handing money over to corporates via no-bid contracts, attacking Iran, spying on Americans, kidnapping and torturing people at random, and looking for remnants of the Constitution to shred.
Isn't capitalism grand? (Say yes or you will be severely punished, and your family may never see you again).
I think the Democrats would be better served by sticking to policies that appeal to the base and then trying to convince some in the middle to come to that viewpoint rather than trying to adopt Democratic policies to the amorphous middle of the American electorate and thereby seeming to stand for nothing. The Republicans win by staying consistent with their policies and playing to their base - seems to be a winning strategy.