Obama Euphoria?
I kept remembering a quote, "Euphoria spreads across the face of our nation like the broad grin of an idiot."
I was certain it was H.L. Mencken who had penned that line, but repeated Google and Wikipedia searches proved fruitless, as did a cursory search for a collection of Mencken's essays that may be under something on the floor of one of my apartments. My father said the quote sounded more like Mark Twain than H.L. Mencken. I don't even want to start searching Twain.
I remembered the line as I was staring at a video screen in a voting booth at the local elementary school. I had come to the school to vote in the Texas Democratic Primary. I had come to vote for Barack Obama because popular wisdom said we needed to select a candidate and avoid a contentious convention, because Obama had the momentum, because all my friends are voting for Obama, because Obama has a better website than Clinton does, the mark of superior savvy in the realm of what's happening now.
I have not heard Obama speak. I have not been touched by his inspiring spell. I went to his site and clicked on "issues." I did the same with Clinton's site. Her home page put me off somewhat, lists of credible people who endorse her, links to videos, a tinge of desperation. Obama's home page is more poker-faced, homey pictures of the man with wife and kid, cool sort of sepia tint. Click on "issues" on either site, and the words that come up are nearly identical. Clinton's a bit tougher on health care, favoring mandatory coverage for adults. They both like the cap and trade thing for global warming.
Neither candidate has that much experience. I don't like Clinton's fear tactics; they remind me of Bush's fear tactics. I don't care what either candidate would do in the event of an emergency phone call in the White House at 3 a.m. They might do right, they might do wrong. No head of state can keep his or her population safe, if they could, there'd be no bus bombings in Israel. I'm concerned with the average. Which one of them is going to make the right decision, on a full range of issues, most of the time? Which one of them is better at making deals, which one of them is going to work harder?
I looked at the names on the screen in the voting booth and I clicked on Clinton's with barely a second's hesitation, a visceral, unstoppable and inexplicable action, like a douser's witching stick arcing downward toward the hidden well. Voting is a weird thing.
I don't think the battle is really going to hurt the Democrats. As long as they are battling, they'll own the press. McCain is no story, and he won't know whom to swing at for a while. I could have voted for McCain once, but he lost me with the "Bomb bomb Iran" gaffe, a gaffe which should have instantly disqualified him from the race, and would have if the mainstream press had any sense of responsibility. It might have been funny had it been a line in a Mel Brooks movie. Presidential candidates, aspiring to be world leaders, aspiring to be respected by other world leaders, can not be so reckless. McCain obviously has some loose wires up top. Hopefully, the press will take issue the next time he short circuits.
I can't say there's anything about Obama that puts me off other than the euphoria surrounding him. But I am suspicious of euphoria. Some say we need a leader with the capability to inspire. Maybe so. If Obama can inspire his way to a nomination, he'll get my vote, and I'll pray he can keep inspiring well past election day. He'll need to inspire all of us to pitch in and dig our way out of this mess. There will be no savior. We'll have to save ourselves, regardless of who's in the White House. And for now, I'm backing Clinton for her grit, her ability and willingness to move against that euphoric tide.
Loading comments…
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
Dude if you think these candidates are ANYTHING alike you need to start doing some serious research.
The Clinton's have YEARS of experience being mega corrupt politions, swindling people out of their houses, and taking money from Gupta/infoUSA swindling the elderly out of their savings. Then Bill was paid $750,000 to advise top United Arab Emirates officials on how to sidestep and address growing U.S. concerns over the acquisition of the security contract for America's ports.
Come one man, how can you sleep with a clean consous, I mean look up Lafarge, Yucaipa, Tata, DeBeers, even REZKO for god sake. The scams never end. You can't be serious.
McMurty? Is HuffPost running out of "R's"?
I always thought his name was James McMurtry.
Mr. McMurty, I enjoyed reading your post, especially for bringing up the word "eurphoria". Elections have always fascinated me because there are people who have romantic (sometimes puritanical) visions of a candidate. It's like the wonderful beginning of a new relationship where everything is novel and bright, especially when one keeps hearing all the right things. Politicians who don't have a lot of experience bank on these romantic visions. Maybe that's why the tide has turned in support of the euphoric campaign; people need something to make them feel good during times of war, recession, the deportation of jobs, and a debt that will affect many generations.
I also agree with your opinion that Mrs. Clinton has shown grit. She was villified by Republicans when she was First Lady. She's weathered a tumultous marriage, scandal, and criticism. She's been called power-hungry, and a monster. For me, it goes back to the bias that women who do have power must be cold-hearted and self-serving. I see her as woman who is tough.. a woman who loves her family and country.. and a woman with determination who has the audacity to become the leader of the most powerful nation in the world. If that doesn't take grit, I don't know what does.
Like you, I can't slam Mr. Obama. He may be the right person for the job as well. The Democrats are lucky that they have this wonderful choice in front of them. I also hope that readers of your post aren't easily swayed by Republican tactics that say they'll turn out in droves to vote against Mrs. Clinton. I have a feeling that they'll do that against Mr. Obama. His time to show some grit may be coming soon.
I applaud Mcmurty for first comparing the issues. Too few actually investigate a candidate's position prior to deciding. My issues with your post is this, its fundamentally flawed as it doesn't fully take into account everything. I use this analogy...
Let me get this right. You have two candidates and one had a slightly better resume. You do some interviews and one interviews really well, his interviewers highly recommend him. You would actually be LESS likely to hire the one that interviewed very well and was most liked by your peers? Doesn't sound rational or logical to me.......
HOPE... it is so crushing. I'm just trying to get out of bed, taking each day at a time... totally depressed and despondent that I'm hopeful. I would function better if I were depressed and hopeless. Right!
There is a distinction between EUPHORIA HATING, and QUESTIONING EUPHORIA. I agree with your post, Senator Clinton sure has an abiity and willingness to move against that euphoric tide - but in some circles her overall actions are what some call turning everything you touch into sh*t.
EUPHORIA IS HILLARY CLINTON'S CRYPTONITE. For example:
1)The euphoric tide that followed her husband, Bill's 1992 win and subsequent inauguration. What did she do? she killed, euphoria , by taking on the Health Care industry. Forcing it on Congress, and totally bypassing the people - without informing them. Outcome Bad.
2) The euphroic tide that followed her announcement as Democratic Presidential Candidate. Let us see, in under a year, she has managed to force her beliefs only to create resentment, alienate many in her party, lose a vast amount of fundraising dollars, lose her delegates and lose her good will. Outcome Bad.
And I'm sure her "Euphoria hating" will do wonders for the Country, again. Yeah Right, She lacks a nuance, that her means, whatever they are, that when she confronts euphoria, the Outcome is Bad.
But Nothing wrong with Questioning Euphoria.
You voted for the candidate that reminded you of Bush?
WTF?
The Bush administration's destruction spreads across the face of our nation like the broad grin of an idiot; and those still smiling will likely vote for a hysterical - but manipulative - HRC.
Wow! Now THAT was poetry, avicenna.
Don't worry -- the more he learns the more horrified he'll be.
I've said it many times and on several places... and it's a point that's touched on here in this post.
This nomination is not about the issues. On issues, regardless of what either campaign might be trying to sell, are seen in a fairly similar light be both candidates. There's not much difference between them.
No, it isn't about the issues. And it is wrong for any campaign to be solely about the issues. To take an excessively extreme example to illustrate the point, George W. Bush is a Republican who's views on any number of issues is well known. There are countless Republicans out there who's take on those issues would be similar to those of the President.
But that does not dilute the fact that George Bush, regardless of his political beliefs, is a very poor leader, and quite possibly one of the most unintelligent Presidents to ever occupy the office.
There is issues, political standing, and then there is capability and, I dread to say the word, personality.
At this point in time, it becomes, to me, about who can deal with it better, and who's more honest. It may have been possible for me to have been a Clinton supporter, had this campaign been run in a manner different from how it has been run.
Given that there isn't much of a difference between the stances of both candidates, the deciding factor for me is the absolutely ruthless manner in which the Clintons have run their campaign. It is the old, tried and trusted politics of Whatever It Takes, throw the baby out with the bathwater, and haul out the kitchen sink... whatever it takes... to win.
Slurs, deceptions, borderline lies, anything that'll win it for them has been used.
I for one really, really don't want someone like that in Office.
If as you say the policy differences are negligible why would you opt for pathos over inspiration. Regan did not win with better ideas but with better delivery. You seem to think that GWB had a better platform than Kerry. No Senator Kerry like Senator Clinton did not have a personality that connects with people. It is not her fault that she isn't cool but to denounce Senator Obama for his ability to inspire seems to be petty Jealousy that you backed the stiff.
Hillary Clinton will only motivate the currently unmotivated republicans to come out and vote.....n
There is a tide of Barrack euphoria. There is also a tide of archtypic hatred of the ambitious middle aged women sweeping the nation. That's what scares me. Dehumanizing Hillary isn't going to help the Dems, America or women's rights. The gross distortions that HRC bashers propegate are preposterous ... and yet they persist. Why can't all of these people prefer one candidate over the other without hating? Keep it civilized? I am a HRC supporter. Aquaintences will, without a lot of thought and just to aggravate me, smugly free associate calling her cunt and douchebag ... thinking it's funny or cute and that they don't mean it. I ask, "WHERE IS THIS COMING FROM?" REALLY ... where??? There is most definitely a monster Hillary that our culture must come to grips with but trust me ... it isn't Hillary Clinton candidate for President.
I used to defend her. But, after the last two weeks, I'm starting to think her critics are right.
I used to think (silly me) that I was a feminist. But their behavior in this campaign has been a revelation to me. Many of them honestly don't care what kind of ugly rumors and outright lies the Clinton campaign uses in its desperate attempt to get 8 more years of power to abuse. They think that because HC is a woman that it is her TURN for higher office, and that getting her back in the White House is some kind of vindication of all the slights, real and imagined, that women have been subjected to over hundreds of years (or think they have).
Sorry, but I just can't see it that way. I would rather have an articulate competent non-nepotist in office, a person--female or male, white or black,-- who inspires people.
I would have been happy to vote for her, BEFORE she started campaigning the way she has.
It is not HRC "bashers" who are dehumanizing Hillary; it is Hillary herself. and Hillary's supporters. And, believe me, her supporters are doing middle aged and old women no favor either by fostering the stereotype of women as changeable sorehead martyrs who will do anything to get their vengance-candidate elected.
Do her supporters actually think that people will change their minds about her based on insults and questioning of their motivations when all they did to earn such scorn was to PREFER ANOTHER CANDIDATE? I am not a cultist or a hater. I am a 73-year old woman who pays attention. And I have decided (after reviewing the Clintons' past behavior through the prism of their current behavior that I don't want another 8 years of them in the White House.
I know! What's wrong with those Obama supporters? They have passion. They have enthusiasm. They still think we can make the world a better place. What idiots! Don't they know that they should do as they are told. They can't change this world, EVER! The plutocratic oligarchy that runs the world will not only never change they will never be defeated. Surrender your enthusiasm. Surrender the joy and euphoria you get from the hope for a better world. Surrender your hope for a meaningful life filled with passion and love. Just surrender. Take your tranquilizers and anti-depre
So why won't the Obama supporters sell out? Why won't they deaden their souls and become a member of the Clinton's zombie army? and why won't those passionate Obama whippersnappers get off my lawn?!
I'm sick to death of all this Obama "euphoria" crap! It's completely clear - from all the hateful comments by Clinton supporters, and all the schoolyard name calling (cult worshippers!) that Clinton's supporters are EQUALLY PASSIONATE about their own candidate. They call me a "cult-worshipping Obamaniac". I call them 'Clinton Supporters". They call my passion and enthusiasm and excitement for my candidate "euphoria" or "koolaide induced delusion". I call their passion for their candidate "passion for their candidate". Now I ask you, which one of us is a "hater"? Oh yeah, that's what they call me too. A "hater". So I guess the more appropriate question is: Which one of us is a hypocrite? Like candidate, like her supporters, I guess.
Wonderfully said, and in far fewer words than my feeble attempts to say the same thing!
James McMurty said:
~~~~~~~~~~
I could have voted for McCain once, but he lost me with the "Bomb bomb Iran" gaffe, a gaffe which should have instantly disqualified him from the race, ...
~~~~~~~~~~
And yet he voted for a candidate who thinks McCain is well qualified to be commander-in-chief despite such war-mongering comments. He voted for the candidate who thinks a speech warning us against the dangers of invading Iraq somehow disqualifies one for the position of commander-in-chief. If McMurty had actually listened to what Obama has to say, he might have heard this warning:
~~~~~~~~~~
I know that even a successful war against Iraq will require a U.S. occupation of undetermined length, at undetermined cost, with undetermined consequences.
I know that an invasion of Iraq without a clear rationale and without strong international support will only fan the flames of the Middle East, and encourage the worst, rather than best, impulses of the Arab world, and strengthen the recruitment arm of al-Qaeda.
~~~~~~~~~~
I can sympathize with suspicion of what seems popular and trendy and (dare I say) inspiring. I thought the world, particularly young poeple, had gone mad with the iPod craze. I just couldn't understand the attraction. Then I tried it once and I was hooked. I told all my friends how wonderful it was. It really was a much better way to listen to music.
There is nothing wrong with being suspicious of fads and crazes. But it is foolhardy to condemn something new merely because it is popular. There was a reason why iPods became so popular. Likewise there is a reason why so many people are enthused by Barack Obama's campaign for president. But you are not going to discover it with a cursory comparison of a handful of policy positions.
True. I'm very much an Obama supporter, but I too am wary of both the advocates and critics who have this adderall-fueled fixity on his supposed messianism. I don't believe he's going to be working wonders here--the most I'm hoping for is affordable health care (and I really can't support the healthcare industry profit bonanza Hillary keeps pulling). I also can't have blind faith in his ability to unify and "end" partisan politics, although I am pretty sanguine about his ability to bring about more cooperation in Washington.
I don't deify Obama, but I will say that I have genuine faith in him--a faith I simply don't have in Senator Clinton. On one hand, it is kind of a matter of judgement. I'm not saying Hillary is "dumb," but I don't think she makes levelheaded choices. I don't think Iraq was a matter of her thinking it was a sound idea, but I do believe she was showing some ugly prudence, and I don't like that. I don't like knowing she voted for the war because she thought it would help her chances in her presidential bid. It goes beyond even a matter of political pressure, but a kind of calculating self-interest that has only exposed itself to be more pockmarked and grotesque as this contest has staggered on. But as far as real judgement goes, I can't get beyond the fact that she utterly maimed the health care system back when she was actually made officially responsible for something. Beyond the circumstantial evidence of her influence, the only instance of actual authority she ever had she blew sky high--like the reverse trajectory of a comet. So I have to ask myself, can I have faith in a moral character that teeters in between genuinely poor judgement and ideological venality? And the truth is, I can't.
But I while I was admittedly agnostic about the possibility of a Clinton presidency at the start of race, I've become a devout atheist, a Richard Dawkins to the Church of Hillary. Fear mongering is bad, but even Bush took pride in "sticking to his guns." Hillary is just swaying in the expedient breeze, as petty and spineless as dead grass. What really killed her for me, though, was her attempt to make Obama look like some kind of charlatan, no better than the worst Washington glad-handers he purports to fight against. I thought that was beyond low. She really gave him no quarter, painting him as both naive AND conniving. Well, I don't buy two-pronged hypocritical attacks, especially when they insinuate my friends, family, and millions of other Americans who voted for Obama are somehow "wrong" or delusional in our beliefs.
That greasy Pennsylvania pig, Rendell, was on Meet The Press yesterday, deriding the caucus process as "undemocra
I'm young, so perhaps Obama's inspirational quality is an age-specific positive, but I really do like a candidate who can make me believe in the political process. Should he be elected, I don't think my voice will matter much, but it might matter some, and I find that to be pretty galvanizing. Even if Obama delivers on less than he promises, there is a fundamental hope with that man that Hillary and Hillary's agenda can never, ever inspire in me.
I second that.
I'm from Massachusetts. Former Governer Romney did nothing in office except pad his resume for the upcoming presidential race. He was utterly hopeless. The Patrick campaign came as a breath of fresh air, all that hope and excitement and flowing rhetoric. Unfortunately, all Patrick's done since he got in office is to pad HIS resume for some future big-money lobbyist job! So forgive me if I can't catch the Obama 'euphoria' bug. i caught the bug last year so this year I'm innoculated. All I'm looking for now is someone to stop digging the deep pit the right wing's dug for this country. My wishes are subdued, my expectations are small. I voted for Obama in the primary and I'll happily vote for either Obama or Clinton in the general. I JUST want the blood-stain hands of the right wing pried off the levers of power. That's all.
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
