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
If this blog (John Ridley's "Barack Obama: Will the Wound Heal?") was a diary in DailyKos, everyone would be screaming "Concern Troll"--which is code for an article that pretends to be concerned about someone (in this case Obama) when all the writer is trying to do is put him down. Nice try Ridley, but please be up front about it. You're for Hillary and you want to convince people not to vote for Obama.
Hello Mr. Ridley,
I am a conservative independent, a minority, a woman and in the military.
I have to confess I was a former Obama supporter, but no more!!!
Should Sen. Clinton not be the nominee, I will write in "Hillary Clinton" on my ballot in November ( even if Mrs Clinton will try to bridge all the democrats together), I feel I cannot vote for a man whoes only goal seems to be preaching to get to the white house.
I have seen blogs where sexism is alive and thriving in the Obama blogs. Please check out:
http://www
and now Michelle Obama seems to feel the presidency is owed to her and her husband. I cannot vote for a presidency where the race of one people is over another ( and I am a
minority saying this!!)
I am an American first!!!!! I didn't support Pres. Bush, but I love laura bush and feels she represents this country well abroad! I cannot say the same about Michelle Obama.
I may even give money to the repubs, just to see how they expose Obama. BUt I WILL NOT VOTE FOR HIM!!!
Interesting to see someone who has come through the Obamahaze.
Thanks.
SarajOHNs
If you get your insight where you get your information, I would sue for fraud.
Well said and certainly healthy food for thought ?????? Yes !!!!! I also wonder, why Obama will not recite the pledge of alligience nor place his hand over the heart during the playing of the National Anthem and yes the lapel pin (US Flag) issue. His wife is not proud until recently of America?? A woman who has had opportunities and certainly well educated in America...
Obama has led the "pledge" countless times in the Senate. You folks are drunk. As to his views on the silly two-faced wearing of the lapel pin (the vast majority of people who wear the flag on their lapels are the same people who vote against support for troop bills--like bills for safer troop rotations, better pay, benefits, etc...), Obama has made his view on this very clear.
Get off your soap box and get the facts.
I was always taught to put my hand over my heart during the Pledge of allegiance and to stand up and take off your hats during the National Anthem. I don't people who follow the latter practice are guilty of hatred of America or are nonpatriots. I love America, just like those who put their hands over their heart during the National Anthem. OK? And I believe Michelle Obama when she says should have said "politics of" before "America." This has been a long, grueling campaign, and these politicians must speak almost nonstop. I am surprised more mistakes don't happen. If we constantly criticize politicians (or their spouses) who misspeak occasionally, then we will get the politicians we deserve--timid robots who spout only slogans and talking points and refuse to say anything before it is poll-tested to death and the meat is taken out of it. Advertising.
ylpatriot: So, you are establishing your credentials by pointing out that you are a "minority woman." Well, you are still talking like a ultra-right Republican, judging if somebody else is sufficiently patriotic. Why aren't these people more grateful? Do they sing the national anthem loud enough? Blah, blah, blah.
Your post could have come straight from Tom Delay, Pat Robertson, Bill O'Reilly.
Please stop repeating these talking point lies. He does recite the pledge of alligience with his hand over his heart. Sometimes he leads it. I agreed with him on the lapel pin because it became a symbol that the Republicans used to call people unpatriotic. I am the same age as Michelle Obama and I relate to her comments. Up until now I've been content and somewhat complacent but watching the way new throngs of people are engaging in politics makes me actually feel pride. Hearing a positive message and not a fear based message makes me feel pride. And lets face, these types of arguments will not get everyone healthcare or start a green economy. There is plenty of substance with Obama if you look past the talking points.
sarajohns: I respect your opinion. Some remarks by Michelle Obama I found rather unfortunate as well.
However, I would like to point out to you that Senator Obama does not have control over what some of his supporters are writing on the Internet. But in his own speeches, don't you agree that it is a major theme of his to emphasize the commonality of all our interests, that he wants a UNITED States of America? He has repeatedly rejected identity politics.
If you indeed will give money to the Republican smear machine, that would be very sad and a bad decision on your part. They would not "expose" Obama but make up stories and lies, because that is all they can do. Can you in good conscience support that?
Hello Sarajohns,
Great post. I hope every American will start thinking the way you are now. Fnally the rethoric has washed out from you, and I applaud you for being so honest about it. I pray everyday that America will see what you have seen already and change the course of this election, hope it won't be too late ! I am also an Independent who won't vote for him, although I have always voted Dem, but this year my vote would rather go to McCain instead, even if it goes against my will. I love this great country that has given me so many opportunities, and voting is the greatest honor. With my vote, I won't contribute to the disgrace of this great country, not for another period of time. I guess it's time America becomes what the founders of the country wanted for America !
Wounds heal when you stop picking at them.
THANK YOU.
Did not want to post this. Neverthele
The real question is that we do not know who the real Barack Obama is. Reading one of his books, and it was a good biography makes you feel good. His speeches make you feel good. Both contain many good words, but do not get into real detail how some of the major struggles have affecting his thinking. What are his current instincts and motivation given a certain situation? This would allow us to know how he will make decisions and set priorities. This will help us trust the new kid on the block, those who need more than words, and those who need at least a little proof.
The words you use, some people hate Barack. I doubt that they hate him.
The BBC asked obvious questions for anyone that has risen to the stage so quickly. On one hand you say it is their job to ask questions, on the other hand you say it is unfair when they do.
What is rhetoric if not a call to action? I believe we need to know more about Obama to understand what actions will be his priorities beyond winning the election. What are the results to the call to action to get Barack elected? How will he react to the challenges of the Presidency? We can then decide how an Obama Administration will really the change the country for us, individually. What are the tangible expectations? Right now, the rhetoric directs us to fill in the blanks on what Hope and Change mean for each of us. This is clever and perfect for campaigns, on getting elected. No doubt, some will be disappointed if we did not get the real answers in advance. What Hope and Change mean in actions, reactions and behavior once Barack is elected. It cannot be said that we simply did not ask the questions and thus it is our fault if we did not.
For example, let us ask that Micelle Obama’s Princeton Thesis be released immediately. Why was her thesis, developed during her formidable years, removed from access until after the election? Is this the type of transparency Barack campaigns on? These words may likely contain real positions on her thinking and reactions to certain situations. What she really feels about a situation and what her instincts will be regarding action. They will tell us about the woman Barack married, and we know he knows her best.
These words contain the answers reporters and the country needs to know. They may give insight into how the behaviors of the Obama’s once in office and give us insight on how Barack and Michelle will react, meaning what decisions they will make to certain situations.
The words so far do not get into any of what the Obama’s are really about.
pure windage
Pure windage in this bizarro world where ineffectual "experience" matters most, bad judgment is not a big deal because "they didn't know any better", ignorance is cute, image is everything, etc. Need I go on?
I think Obama is entirely authentic. By looking at him you get a good feel for who he is. I try to avoid macho allusions, but I would much rather be in a fox hole with Obama than with George Bush. And if we have to examine the term papers in colllege of candidate's wives, then what is next? What they wore to the high school prom, perhaps. Stay with substance, if you disagree with what Obama has said point it out. Being a gifted speaker is not necessarily a poor quality for a presidential aspirant, although Republicans who liked Bush may be disappointed in a candidate who can form a sentence.
Forget the plagiarism that Senator Hardly Votes Obama has committed, that's a sign of arrogance and laziness. What should be worrisome to all is his obsession with religious solutions to real-time problems.
Unlike Governor Michael I lIke The Attention Huckabee, who is overt about his belief in Biblical principles to solve the negative issues that plague America, Obama is attempting to be covert. His messianic mentality still demands that his interpretation of the Bible be used to rule and heal America. That is exactly what the Founding Fathers didn't want and is what they explicitly opposed in their discussions, working papers, and in the United States Constitution. Obama is just Bush with better shoes.
I'm telling you, this Obama character is just too dangerous to simply be handed the keys to the kingdom, or in this case, the keys to the White House without a lot more vetting. The problem is that the Media is only interested in breezy headlines and quick quips to do the job demanded of them - you know, the one fully expressed in that very same U.S. Constitution.
Empty rhetoric, pious platitudes, poetically rising turns of phrases are not what we need to get this country back on track. We need a President who can hit the ground running in January 2009. Obama will not be capable of that. I still don't know who his team consists of and who will comprise a risky Obama White House, except for the touchy-feely, power-of-one, horsefeathers of pompous, egomaniacal, overrated Oprah. The idea of a Huckabee presidency is just too frightening to imagine in terms of foisting a theocratic reign over America. Aren't we fighting in two far-flung places to stop this kind of fanatical rule?
There are only two candidates who can hit the ground running in January 2009, and they are either Hillary Clinton or John McCain.
not judging by how she has run her campaign . and not judging by how he keeps getting caught in lies.
So a vote for Obama is a vote for fanatical rule? Wow, I missed it. Thanks!
I'm not exactly sure what "wound" you're talking about. Obama has stuffed Hillary on the plagiarism charge, which she got booed for in Austin.
The only reason why people are even talking about this is because they need to find something negative about Obama to print at the risk of looking like they're giving him a free pass. It's obvious to anyone who has seen him speak that he's not plagiarizing, he's telling us the truth.
It's so interesting that Obama can be criticized for "stealing" someone else's ideas by people who haven't ever had an original idea in their head.
-Wexler
Barack Obama shouldn't let down his guard ... I doubt seriously that he has ONLY used two plagarized comments since he's become the oratorical giant/God of the media. I've heard people as diverse as Pat Buchanan, Joe Scarborough, Chris Matthews, even some righter wing Republicans, Bill and Hillary Clinton, concede he's a great orator.
Great orators seem less great when they are exposed for ripping rap from friends and political colleagues, when they have not attributed such "lifts" when speaking. If Obama has OTHER such instances, it would behoove him to list them ... I doubt just because Hillary has poo pooed this as "silly season politics" doesn't mean this is over.
I hope, as a Clinton supporter, that if there are more lifts, or, if there is, in fact, quite a long list of such lifts, someone begins to dribble them out ... one day at a time .. until he caves, and enumerates them. If he doesn't know what they are, then that shows a general lack of character.
All he would have had to do was say: "As my friend and political colleague has said ..." and it would have been a non starter of an issue. But, because he HAS been cited as a great speaker, and obviously uses Martin Luther King, Jr., as his role model ... his failure to do so is now a character issue.
Personally, I can't believe there are just two incidents of lifting. The campaign has been underway far too long and he's made far too many speeches for this practice to be isolated to ONLY TWO.
A campaign speech is not policy. Is there any
poltician out there stumping for votes who hasn't borrowed ideas and words from another before him?
I clearly heard the perfect Hillary Clinton speak the words "HELP IS ON THE WAY."
I heard this same thing in 2000 from Dick Cheney at a Bush-Cheney event in Ocala, Florida.
I find it MUCH MORE interesting that Mrs. Clinton borrows her rhetoric from the neocons!
I'm not sure I understand. Obama has been offering specifics for two years now. Yes, as he said the other night, he gives a good speech. But he also lists the key policy issues he's passionate about with ease.
When Gore ran, people said "He's too wooden."
When Kerry ran, people said "He's too much like a professor.
Now that Obama is running, people say "He's too eloquent"?
The guy can't win. Hillary lifted his "Change" theme, she gets a pass. She lifted his "I can't do this alone, I need you involved" theme, she gets a pass. Her book, "It takes a Village" was ghost-written, yet she doesn't acknowledge it in the book's "acknnowledgements" and insists that she's the one who wrote it, even though the publisher gave a journalism professor $120,000 to write it http://en.
Christ, what does this guy have to do to get some respect? Oh, he's too popular and too reasonable! That can't be good!
Here's a statistic worth mentioning:
1 in 300 Americans have donated to his campaign; mostly small donors. That's ~1,000,000 people.
Can ANY candidate in history say the same?
On the other hand, 1,000,000 people have died in Iraq. Hmmmm. Let's focus on how he might be too eloquent? Good God, we're a twisted culture, at points...
The actual criticism is that he's a talking head.
Get it?
annin - either you are supremely lazy or just plain ignorant and bitter. you keep yammering about obama. watch a documentary about him. go hear him, read every position paper on his website. shit. look up who he has on his team. read all kinds of websites - not just those that cater to your bias......
No they don't!
Right on! I don't get it. Sen. Obama is what I have been waiting for in a politician all my life.
Maybe he is the ultimate con, but until someone PROVES it, he is my choice.
He makes me feel better about this country, and for the first time ever I have gotten involved. I have canvassed, donated money and made phone calls. That is pretty good for someone who has always believed the whole thing is rigged anyway.
Maybe they really don't have anything on him, maybe he is just what he says, someone that wants to change the way things are done, or at least give it a try.
Obama has plenty of 'specifics' and it is only the media's imbecilic obsession with simplistic narratives that creates the impression that he doesn't. But here is a very specific, very simple specific that is apparently ignored by the mainstream media whenever they bring up 'rhetoric': OBAMA WILL END THE WAR. This isn't some vapid 'hope' rhetoric, it is a strategic policy imperative. Contrast this with McCain, who promises to keep us at war for decades.
As usual, our politics are damaged not so much by the quality of our politicans, but by the immature children (the TV talking heads mostly, but don't forget Dowd et al) who control the discursive framing of issues.
It's not that he doesn't have policies. He does. They just don't seem to resonate as his own is the problem.
He seems to not really "get" his own platform, which is why he never really comes off sounding firmly grounded in debates.
and hillary and her blue-ribbon panels are "her own". give me a break. you guys "get real". your ears are filled w/ bias. he is the most calm, grounded candidate i've ever witnessed. he oozes calm. what's your point. his policies have resonated plenty with the people who are voting for him. why would every major paper in texas endorse him? why are superdelegates jumping to him? it's not because he has a pretty smile and that's all there is. you people are fricking impossible.
You are amazing. "(His policies) don't seem to resonate as his own"... "he never really comes off sounding firmly grounded in debates"..
"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?"
You wrote this John! What does this mean? Bend to the will of the new?
Actions really do speak louder than words. I don't feel secure with a politician with only words. The Europeans, after the german experience, don't like religiosity and don't like self indulgence. That is what they don't like about Americans, in general. Well, now it is also because of the Iraq War but I bet they would say the war grew out of these two things - too much religion and self indulgence in politics. They make fun of their politicians - and give them power without allegience and certainly without religious fervor. I think they will soon see Obama as much too religious and self indulgent and therefore will be able to change nothing. He is not a symbol of NEW anything.
>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
Maybe you should widen your circle a bit. Or at least name names, rather than falling back on the Republican "some people say" meme. There are many definitions of the word rhetoric, though the one most applicable to Senator Obama is "The art or study of using language effectively and persuasive
Writers glom onto easy thesis statements. You're right. It never was about plagarism. It was an updated version of her message, "Where's the beef?"
Glad to hear people see the truth of the matter.
It's just a symptom of careless thinking, mostly.
And that is bothersome.
It is laughable
that in the aftermath of the exposing of only Mr. Obama's most recent plagiaristic appropriation of, to use his own characterization, his "buddy" Deval Patrick's words to defend his overly hyped skill as an orator, one member of the Obama Character-
cried "Gotcha" about the fact that in the Texas debate Senator Clinton used nearly the same language to describe the "hits" she has taken in her political life as did President Clinton in 1992 to describe his.
To which I say, when Barack Obama has shared the same bed with Deval
Patrick for 33 years; and the two of them have fought the good fight for 35
with the same degree of success; when they have survived a decade and
more of the most villainous, scurrilous attacks, both political and personal, from both Republican and Democrat; and when they have retained an almost preternatural grace and generosity after they have been derisively yoked together into a corporate identity as "Obamal," then I will quite happily grant him the same latitude in his choice of words as I do her.
PS. Actually it would be too unfair to call Mr. Obama's effort mere "
plagiarism," for it was, rather, a brilliant almost gesture for gesture, phrase for phrase, note for note impression of the Massachusetts governor. Can there really be any doubt that to achieve such perfected mimicry, Mr. Obama studied this piece of videotape as assiduously as an NFL defensive coach would the past performance of his rivals before the Super Bowl? So are we really, thus, to be expected to believe the "innocent mistake" explanation of Mr. Obama, ever the expert at charming us by providing his own wrist-slapping for his lapses in judgment?
he never said "innocent mistake". why would he? his national co-chair who shares campaign staff with him TOLD HIM TO USE THE LINES. what part of that don't you idiots get? it's silly season. stop it. stopping it begins with you and your brain. gather up what's left and USE IT.
I really have to hand it to you John. You are nothing if not consistent. You have never given Obama a break this whole campaign, so I cannot expect you to be fair considering all that has happened to your candidate, Hillary. I do feel sorry for you that when you were called up, you were on the wrong side of the equation. I hope that Hillary is grateful to you for all that you've attempted to do to undermine her opponent. From "DAY ONE" as Hillary is so fond of saying, you really had no clue as to what this election really was about and couldn't see your way clear to giving Obama a break. Let history be the judge. As "for me & my house" we stand with Obama!
ridley, you will be voting for a republican in any case, so go write a screenplay, or something useful.
I'll be wasting my vote for the Libertarian candidate. The hoot is, it is really fun there is a black candidate. I've sailed, and served with lots of black men. Too bad the first one to get to this point is a lefty. I'd love to vote for him, but I can't beause of his programs.
No, but, you would rather vote for a right wing candidate that your own party can't stand. They have no other choice to vote for the guy, who else do they have ? You have so many programs your candidate has, hard to choose from, war, war and more war.
Which ones bug you?
I'm going Independent, too, but that's mostly to make a statement against his attack on the Clinton years.
So I'm sure I'm not a "lefty."
So which policies bother you guys?
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
