Barack Obama: Will the Wound Heal?
It began as the non-troversy of the holiday shortened week: the accusation that Barack Obama had plagiarized part of a stump speech from Mass. Governor Deval Patrick
He hadn't. And even if he had lifted or borrowed or co-opted a couple of lines, does anybody really think the post-modern politician expresses a single word that isn't team scripted and focus group tested before it's uttered in the public square?
The plagiarism jab left barely a scratch on Obama. But sometimes even the slightest wounds can fail to heal.
As I was making the rounds with the cable newsers this past Tuesday before the primary, I witnessed first-hand a theme develop. Almost to a person the newers I spoke with dismissed the plagiarism rap, but wondered aloud about Obama's rhetoric. The word rhetoric being flipped from asset to pejorative. Was there, they wondered, more to Obama than his rhetoric? How far, they asked, would his rhetoric take him? When would his rhetoric be replaced by specifics?
The Obama/rhetoric question is not new.
And some of the hectoring over Obama-mania is coming from the usual suspects. But the Chris Matthews/Kirk Watson interview was fuel on the fire, and in the days since the chorus of "give us more" seems to have increased rather than diminished.
Certainly some of this hectoring can be attributed to the media news cycle looking for a new drum to beat, if not some old fashioned player hating for the new Democratic front runner. But for those who think the questions of rhetoric are limited to MSM hacks with sharp knives, it is not. The BBC World Service ran a piece on Obama openly wondering if his rhetoric is becoming a liability. I can't say as the BBC would be particularly partisan in this instance.
Ultimately, if there is this sense that Obama is all sizzle and no steak, it is certainly not the fault of the man himself. At this late stage of the primaries, the media has had every opportunity to give the guy a good shaking out. If the newsers feel Obama isn't forthright with specifics, it's their responsibility to ask the questions they'd like answered. There is little doubt Obama could answer them. He may be relatively new to the national political scene, but he is hardly a neophyte. More importantly, we all benefit when the candidates have their mettle fairly tested in the media glare.
The larger question going forward is: do specifics really matter? To quote Mike Tyson: the best fight plan in the world only lasts until you take the first punch in the face. Similarly, the best political ideas only last until you get them before a divided and ineffectual Congress.
Perhaps, more than specifics, we need a leader who can inspire people to pressure their reps to bend to the will of the new. What is rhetoric if not a call to action?
Perhaps that's a question someone would care to ask of Barack Obama.
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
What steak did he make in 8 years in the Illinois Senate? That is what Obama needs to serve up.
Right now he offers a generic "community organizer" resume. Well, he did that in 1985, right out of college, before law school. "Present: is not leadership.
where is the beef? McCain will eat him alive, if we get there. Shame on the American people for letting a smooth talker --all sizzle and no steak--get this close to our Presidency.
Obama had a stellar record of achievement in the Illlinois State Senate, with impactful legislation in healthcare, ethics, job training, justice, and much more. http://www
What steak did he make in 8 years in the Illinois Senate? That is what Obama needs to serve up.
Right now he offers a generic "community organizer" resume. Well, he did that in 1985, right out of college, before law school. "Present: is not leadership.
where is the beef? McCain will eat him alive, if we get there. Shame on the American people for letting a smooth talker --all sizzle and no steak--get this close to our Presidency.
McCain will lose by historic margins. Obama has broken down his plan to provide insurance for Americans, his tax plans to balance the deficit, much of his foreign policy philosophy. It is so simplistic to conclude because he is a great orator that he has no substance. Actually, the reverse is more likely true. I will remind you, Lincoln, John and Bobby Kennedy, and Dr. Martin L. King were all great orators and very much men of substance. On the other hand, there was George W. Bush. Enough said!
Obama can't heal and unite. He has done nothing but polarize this election, but of course Hillary has been blamed for that. His inability to prove he's ready other than spew rhetoric is what's bothering me. I was watching "The State of the Black Union" on C-Span, and all of the remaining candidates were asked to make an appearance. John McCain, Mike Huckabee, Barack Obama, and Hillary Clinton. And guess who was the only one that agreed to appear? You guessed it, Hillary Clinton. This just shows the republicans disregard for the Black community, and shows more of Obama's ego trip. The same community helping you get ahead, you disregard. Hillary had nothing to gain from making the trip to New Orleans to appear. She's already lost in LA. It was her genuine concern for the community that led her to appear. This is why I would never support Barack Obama. From day one, I've supported the person that will be ready on day one. Hillary Clinton. Beyond all the talk and promises of change, she, in my opinion offers realistic solutions.
I guess Obama does not want to appear as the "black candidate.
Nice pretzel you served up there.
Some hear the words of hope and inspiration and can only disbelieve. Some see opportunity's hand outstretched, beckoning, and can only think about fear. One should never follow blindly, but neither should one give in to fear and cynicism.
You should never uses some else's words without giving them credit. Not a knock on Obama, but in the end is it worth it? Does not seem to be worth it - to me. Lessons learned.
Good post.
Obama has a rhetorical weakness that he needs to address. He does speak in broad generalities in an inspiring way. When people ask, "where is the beef?" most of his supporters suggest that you go to his website where they are all laid out in the boring way that policy is always laid out. Few go. Fewer get through it.
Whether the words are his or not, when he answers the "just words" argument by showing the power of words, he is only answering half the charge. He needs to also say that the words are only the wrapping around some great ideas and thinking.
To me, Obama's greatest speech is one is one I have only read the transcript of. It was the one he delivered in 2002 against the war in Iraq. It is great not only because he was right, but also because he offers up details that show us now, six years later, just how right he was. And he speaks out bluntly, against a specific war, while also speaking eloquently about the justness of previous wars and the heroism of the warriors who fought them. He hits all the points in what is (for him) a concise yet moving speech.
But get him in a debate and he goes on to long, stammers too much and says too little. He repeats portions of his stump speech and doesn't cut to the chase. In this last debat he FINALLY made the point that health mandates don't mandate anything to the government, they mandate to the people. Why did it take him 19 debates to finally make that point clearly.
Watching Obama create on the open court is a thing of beauty. He needs to show a little more how he can make things happen with a tough defender in his face.
I decided to take a step back from all of the rhetoric from both sides to take an objective look at both candidates.
As you know there is alot of crap from both sides. Personally I think the Dem party is in trouble because its a civil war out there. Who ever wins the nom I think its going to be REALLY hard for the otherside to support.
Anyway I looked around the web to find the most objective comparisons between Hill and Obama and here they are. I was very surprised. I learned alot:
http://www
http://jay
It would be hard for Hillary's supporters to choose Obama over a Bush clone as America's chief executive for the next four years?
That's not true. What's more, if it were, that wouldn't be Obama's fault -- it would be the voters themselves getting the bad government they deserve (again).
Point of Fact: Obama's speechwriter is Ted Sorenson. The same guy who wrote all those uplifting and inspiring speeches for Bobby Kennedy. The credit belongs to Sorenson, not Obama.
But I'm sure that's a little detail the Obama fans would rather not know. They want to believe he comes up with his soaring oratory off the cuff.
Point of fact, Vanessa: Obama wrote "The Audacity of Hope" by himself. Before this campaign. And if you read it, you may see that he's every bit the eloquent, inspired visionary that he "appears" to be. Without Ted Sorensen's help.
Obama the tele-evangelist is taking over the Democratic Party. He has gathered up anti-war pacifists and our American youth. The sports and entertainment worlds have merged with the religious left and left us VOTERS out of our RIGHT to vote.
I call FOUL. Obama's delegate count from caucus states should not count.
We are patriotic Democrats.
This is some kind of religious take-over of our own Democratic Party.
It is the retaking of the Democratic Party by people swayed by humanitarian issues. You know the people.
Get used to it or piss off.
So naive. If the candidate is allowed to talk at a televised debate, he ain't for the 'people.'
It's amazing how people continually think that the youth electorate (many of whom are in college) are easily swayed and duped by someone who speaks with eloquence. A lot of young people seem to identify with Obama's message as well as with the style of its delivery; Clinton, on the other hand, perhaps hasn't found her voice despite her belief to the contrary.
And those who are college students not only have the opportunity to debate the election with experts (i.e., professors), but have access to archives other than Google.
I'd think it was a 'cultural take-over', not a religious one.
Well said, Markos. There are many in the present campaigns that have made the great mistake of dismissing their opponents and those who disagree with them as naive, ill-informed, dumb, gullible, etc. One need look no further than the Clinton campaign for this. Those who engage in this divisive game do so at their peril. The day will soon come when they will seek to make strategic alliances with their opponents, perhaps to thwart a common foe, and they'll find that there is no loyalty among thieves...
You say Obama is a "tele-evangelist," yet he does not call for any merger of church and state.
The sports and religious worlds have denied your right to vote, you conclude. Have you tried going to the polls. Is there a professional athlete there who will not let you cast a ballot? No!
You conclude the delegates from the caucus states should not count. These are the voters who literally argued for hours before making their choice.
And last I heard the anti-war "pacifists" and the youth can cast ballots, as well.
Who is the one being anti-democratic, I ask?
If Obama does not agree to seat Florida and Michigan, I'd say he's the one being "anti-democratic".
Hillary is as real as a Three dollar bill. Hillary has been around the block, and is very slick.
Hillary voted for the War,She knew what she was voting for,along with voting along the lines to give Bush everything he wanted. Mr. Bush bestowed upon himself lots of power, and that is what Hillary was drooling over. She thought she would inherit all that power,but Obama became that thorn in her side and now she may lose the chance.
Let he/she who has never used someone's else's words stand and look at themselves in the mirrior and say" thats alright. People that waste there time on such "Nonsense".
Obama did in fact make a fool of himself and Hillary had mentioned this as well. Obama and Hillary the word(GOD) is not written upon your foreheads, you cannot protect the people from harm. As President your Oath is to protect,defend and preserve the Constitution of the United States. Something the present one knows nothing about. "GET REAL.
"Perhaps, more than specifics, we need a leader who can inspire people to pressure their reps to bend to the will of the new." Excellent point, Mr. Ridley.
I've been waiting for Obama to make the same case when asked about the value of mere "inspirati
At least he hasn't done so when I've been listening.
Check out any of his last few stump speeches. He hammers this point precisely in the "building a mandate for change" section.
Perhaps you were in the other room?
Why are you accepting the Obama is just rhetoric, Clinton talking points?
I too, find the rock star fans of Obama's early boring speeches, unfathomable. But lots of people are inspired by those speeches. Isn't that a good thing?
I went to his web site and researched his posistions.
www.Barack
I research Obama's history and accomplishments,
http://www
I listened to this video of Obama being interview by the SF newspaper board.
http://www
Obama's experience and positions are better then Hillary's.
Hillary was the Chair for the DLC.ORG centrist corporatists. Hillary was on the board of Walmart. Hillary voted for the Iraq invasion.
Hillary's very attack on Obama for not writing his own stuff,
Was NOT WRITTEN BY HER!
It's not just that Barack Obama and Deval Patrick both got their words from a political consultant. At the warm-up for a recent Obama rally -- that was much more like a revival meeting than a political gathering -- the speaker kept asking, "Do you believe? Do you believe? Do you believe in Barack Obama?" The answer from the swooning throngs was, Yes, Yes, Yes! And that's good, as far as it goes.
When I was a student at Boston University School of Theology, I heard many of our greatest preachers. Sen. Obama has channeled some of that inspirational ability into his speeches and has brought multitudes out to vote, for which we all owe him thanks and appreciation. But, so far, his rhetoric has primarily been to get people to believe in him and his story, to vote for him, rather than on behalf of a Democratic agenda and the election of progressive Democrats in Congress. So far, it is a personal crusade and that's not enough.
No President can achieve anything without the votes in the House of Representatives and the Senate. The question is who is better equipped to change Congress, because you can't change anything else without the votes. Sen. Obama's supporters seem to believe he can walk on water, but it's crucial to understand that Democratic primaries and caucuses are not the general election. The Republican attack machine will be in high gear whether it's Clinton or Obama, and our nominee better be prepared.
Sen. Obama says he's ready for a "debate" with the Republicans. If that's truly his attitude towards what lies ahead, he'll be ground up into little pieces, just like John Kerry before him. I want a nominee who understands what it's going to take to fight and win, who shares 95% of the same positions but who has the tenacity and steel to go up against a party whose dirty tricksters will stop at nothing.
That's one of the reasons I support Hillary Clinton.
You haven't check out the Obama links have you?
I promise, no preacher speech.
You lose all credibility when you just react to how good Obama is as a speaker, but can't refute him on accomplishment and issues, in fact, you don't even look them up.
Obama is playing poker. He is pretending to have a winning hand when he doesn't. He can only bluff so long.
This is our country. We are patriotic for our country. This is not a game.
I don't think Obama wants or will get his hands dirty.
We are the ones who really need Hillary.
This year - The Best Man For The Job Is The Woman.
I went to his web site also, and found this statement about his so-called opposition to the war. "As a candidate for the United States Senate in 2002, Obama put his political career on the line to oppose going to war in Iraq, and warned of "an occupation of undetermined length, with undetermined costs, and undetermined consequenc
For an article where Obama admits he took the speech off his web site, see:
www.blackc
Almost the entire country backed the war at the time. Bush had whipped us into a hysteria. Obama's calm, rational approach spoke volumes about his character. Perhaps instead of asking why Obama is backdating his resume, you should ask why Bush lead the country into a war on false reasons and then continued to lie about the success, or lack thereof, of the campaign.
I am pleased to find someone taking issue with the BS constantly mentioned by Obama tbat while Hillary "voted for the war" he was against it from day one. Bill Clinton took heat from the Obama forces, including the MSM, for correctly stating that the Obama claim about his actions regarding the war was a hell of a "fairy tale".
To begin with no one in the congress has yet voted for or agasinst the war. The simple reason is that no such vote has ever been taken in the congress.O
I believe that if their roles were reversed, with Hillary taking credit and giving out blame, that the MSM would have stomped her to death long ago. What the hell is going on? Does the vast right wing conspiracy going overboard to get Obama nominated knowing full well he can't be elected in the general. I guess in time we may know what has happened during this primary season.
The experience issue is my main reason for supporting Hillary Clinton. That said, I also am deeply troubled by some of the rhetoric I hear from Michelle and Barak Obama. Senator Clinton closing remarks in the Texas debate were, in my opinion, much more inspiring than all the "yes we can" chanting I've heard over the past several months.
Compare her message of pride being on stage with Barak Obama to his "you are likeable enough Hillary" from an earlier debate. Compare Hillary's message of hope for the country rather than herself to Michelle's lack of pride in her country until this election cycle. Compare Hillary's unerring support for the Democratic nominee (whoever he or she may be) to Obama's "my supporters may not support Hillary"; and Michelle's need to "think about" supporting Hillary.
The conclusion is obvious: Hillary Clinton is the true "uniter". Obama is a divisive messiah figure who has played on the emotions of his supporters while offering very little in the way of solutions to the problems facing this country. Hillary gets my support.
I decided to take a step back from all of the rhetoric from both sides to take an objective look at both candidates.
As you know there is alot of crap from both sides. Personally I think the Dem party is in trouble because its a civil war out there. Who ever wins the nom I think its going to be REALLY hard for the otherside to support.
Anyway I looked around the web to find the most objective comparisons between Hill and Obama and here they are. I was very surprised. I learned alot:
http://www
http://jay
And so it is: Hillary is the true Uniter. That's why Hillary is uniting the Democratic party and the nation behind her, and winning this nomination
I hope Obama and his supporters are ready for the barrage of negative accusations that about to head his way from the republicans and the media. Clinton may have taken jabs at Obama but she couldn't go all out because they are in the same party and it cost her votes. The republicans on the other hand have no such problems to worry about. The spotlight has just begun to shine on Obama's past now that his is the undisputed frontrunner and the media will be digging for something to fill their news cycles between now and November. This stuff about Obama being more style than substance is only going to get worse as time goes on.
No one incites Republican hatred like Hillary. The Republican attack machine will gear up for any Democratic candidate. It is what they do.
Sen. Obama does not have "control" over his supporters on the Internet? Sen. Obama has so much mind control over his supporters, all he need do is speak up. They (his supporters) hang on every word out of his mouth, whether it's his or not. This hate campaign by Obama bloggers works hand in hand with the media's inability to criticize. Let's here more about the senator's work on behalf of lobbyists representing clients in Illinois. The stories have been written by ABCnews and the NYTimes but seems to go nowhere. Sen. Obama has fueled a mob to shout down any criticism of their guy. It will be silent the day after the Inauguration if he's elected President. He'll have to solve those problems on his own, with his own dreadful inexperience to keep him company.
Yes, I am sure you do not vote for Bush given his relative inexperience and absolute no knowledge of foreign policy. Bush could not even locate South America on a map.
Maybe Obama needs to tone down his sermon on the mountaintop (echos of MLK and Moses no?). Some of his follows have threatened Tavis Smiley with death because Smiley criticized Obama for skipping an event in New Orleans (see the CNN story today). Death? What has Obama's ongoing sermon to do with the Sermon on the Mount? What has Obama's sermon to do with Christianity? Or, for that matter, civilization? Is this the extreme emotion Obama's words incite? We do not need a preacher man in the White House. We need a problem solver. Look in church if you must hear a sermon. Look elsewhere for the political/
There are idiots all over the place. Citing them is not a rational reason to oppose a candidate.
But, to be fair, you seem to be arguing something quite specific here: that Obama's ability to evoke strong emotions is something we should fear. My take is that, as a culture, we are a bit a clumsy knowing how to deal with these emotions -- mainly because it's been so long since we've had such strong leadership potential. Some of us don't recognize it when we see it, others don't trust it.
No doubt, like anything, there's a downside. But the Obama movement is based largely on the notion of the "fierce urgency of now" -- the sense that, above all else, what we currently need is a national reunification that can move us past extreme, entrenched political and cultural stand-offs.
No doubt Obama might not be the right leader in another election year. The question is whether he's the right leader right now.
Greetings from Texas: I was at the Toyota Center when Barack gave his remarks. Yes, it was the longest speech he has given and it was scripted. I think he is a good extemporaneous speaker because he speaks from his heart and he can gauge his audience well. I have never heard of anyone "owning" particular phrases before. Actually accusing someone of plagarism is for written content, isn't it? If people actually had ownership of what they said, then we would not be able say much. If I repeat "I hear ya, sista" will I be accused of plagarizing the person who originated the saying??? This is so silly.
Are you the same Texas which gave us George W. Bush? No thanks!
Rhetoric can really fan flames and intoxicate the listeners. I just read a story on CNN's site about how Tavis Smiley has received death threats because he criticized Barack Obama for not attending a gathering in New Orleans. Now, not attending/attending is any candidate's choice ... but criticism is an ok choice, too and is essential in a campaign for "the most powerful office in the world." But criticism of Sen. Obama is usually met with a screaming mob in the blogs, or in this case, death threats to Mr. Smiley, and apparently (cited in the CNN story) threats to Mr. Smiley's family. Maybe this is why the press has been giving Sen. Obama such a free pass all along. Stories cited on ABCnews and in the NY Times about Sen. Obama's legislative assistance on behalf of various lobbies pretty much went nowhere, yet they go to the heart of his campaign theme that he is not an insider, that he comes from a different place. In the end, he did/does what any professional politician does to get ahead and this makes him just like the rest of them. That was a story not reported either ... the furor of his followers is a nice deterrent to clear headed reporting. As for the plagiarism, it too is something "they all do." Anyone who cares to research it knows that JFK's famous "Ask not..." line was lifted from an earlier (not much earlier, either) President. Because Sen. Obama's fame is built on his rhetoric, plagiarism is of particular importance in criticizing his campaign. His rhetoric, whether it's his or borrowed for the moment at hand, is what's fueling all this hyped up "hope." And it's a great fog over his glaring inexperience. America, you need to wake up because this country and this world are in grave trouble and we need a competent leader to steer us through these problems. We cannot afford Sen. Obama's "learning curve" that might begin on January 21, 2009. And we won't be able to help him get out of the mess at that time. After the fancy and maybe plagiarized inauguration speech, the cheers will stop and the work begins. He is simply not prepared. If you must have him, let him learn and gain the experience he needs. But not now.
While I don't agree with your analysis that charges of "plagiarism" should be considered more seriously with Obama than with other politicians, your overall argument is a valid reason not to support him.
In the end, after weighing all the evidence, each of us has to make a gut decision regarding which candidate's skills and experiences are most likely to move us safely past massive political/cultural deadlocks. While I recognize your fears about Obama are likely sincere, I do ask you to recognize that my conclusions are also sincere. My opinion is heartfelt but also the result of rational investigations. (I feel I have to remind critics of this from time to time who seem to think the Obama movement is entirely the product of irrational exuberance
Well, unlike President Bush, at least Senator Obama has a learning curve. And you do not have to fear. I do not think Obama supporter's are a threat to Mr. Smiley, (unless he uses Obama's name in vein.)
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
