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
Here's the truth about Hillary's "moment" from the debate. Who's the plagiarist?
http://www
Unbelievable gall, that woman has.
Yes. And the press let's her get away with it.
Oh please. These "tattle-tale" kindergarten arguments are so disengenuous it's bordering pathetic now. Face the music: Obama tried and failed to "put one over" on the listener. He's caught red-faced and nothing can erase that. It says a lot about his character. Manipulative and sneaky.
Has everyone forgotten that plagiarism ruined Joe Biden's earlier run for Pres? Obama has yet again gotten a free pass from the media on his phiny rhetoric.
How can any teacher tell their students not to plagiarize when Baby Jesus Obama says the issue of plagiarism is "just silly." It doesn't make it OK because Deval Patrick said it was ok any more than it's ok for one frat boy to let another frat boy copy his paper and turn it in as his own.
Yet another example of a media free pass for the televangelist BO. Obama is a flim flam man--a good salesman but completely UNqualified to be president.
Just like George Bush: lots of elevating rhetoric and NO experience. Look where that got us!
Clearly what we need is another expert politician in the White House who whole heartedly supports getting into unnecessary foreign policy disasters.
You can usually tell that post is a rant, when it resorts to name calling. I must admit "Baby Jesus Obama" is a new one on me!
It's not the experience that's the most important thing that makes a person a good leader. It's the person. Alexander the great conquered most of the known world by the time of his death at age 33. And Bush and Clinton were both governors of states, with no experience in the federal government. The reason Clinton was a better politician and leader was that he had more talent and was smarter then Bush. It had nothing to do with his greater "experienc
Is that what Obama's aims are? To conquer the world?
If it's not the experience
Hey, click on this link. It is a classic:
http://you
Name one accomplishment by Hillary Clinton, except voting for war and cluster-bombs.
Schip for one. First responder rights for 2. I can keep going, but it's more fun if you look some up. Education is not scary if you just give it a try.
I think at least a portion of the jornalistic community is coming to the realization (likely too late) that Sen. Obama has outflanked them, and has reached the very threshhold of the Democratic Presidential nomination witout ever having specificlly WHAT he believes, or what he intends...
The complete abdication by the press of it's crucial responsibility to inform the voting public, and it's failure to cover anything but horserace, personalities, and pep rallies is, in my view, a direct result of the cheapening, and the dumbing down of the "news" business.
Let's hope Sen. Obama is every bit as terrific as his rabid supporters seem to believe he is. (yes we can!) The unfortunate truth, thanks to the fourth estate, is that we really have no idea, do we?.......
Why don't you take a moment to compare his senate RECORD to that of Hillary's? That way you don't have to speculate so much to see that he is a MUCH better candidate!
http://www
Yes...a former Hillary supporter who actually did some research, then decided to switch to Obama because his record was better.
Take a moment and compare the lopsided nature of media coverage:
http://www
Who wouldn't be able to walk with a campaign to the nomination with those numbers in your favor?
Obama draws out huge crowds = "must be those gullible young people; they don't know anything".
Priceless.
Frankly, I would LOVE sizzle and no steak. I'm getting bloody SICK of steak. Bush has zero sizzle and he's got us in record debt (STEAK). He's too busy lining the pockets of defense contractors and oil conglomerates and getting us in debt to CHINA. Hillary is not the antidote, being that she voted for war, voted to declare the Iranian republican guard terrorists, and represents divisiveness and more DEBT. Give me a young guy who wants to start FRESH. That's where the country is AT, people. Obama will be our next president. Go with it. It's a good thing.
IMO, Ridley backed Hillary because he thought she would be the inevitable nominee. It'll be interesting to see how this worm turns. It seems to be turning already.
I disagree, there's no doubt at all that Obama can handle the minor task of putting forth fine details. He's just a little more deliberate than most dems about revealing those things. Compared to the insane blather of Bush, Obama's plans are academic masterpieces.
The larger question is how Obama responds when he gets hit with really big right-wing lies. Hillary's little political jabs are love-taps compared to the oceans of nasty and gigantic lies that are coming this fall. all the news services don't have enough investigative journalists put together to debunk it all before November. The cons have stuff already bought and paid for that would make even Paula Jones blush.
http://www
You probably shouldn't link that piece of shit here. Really.
Your last paragraph is right on. With Karl Rove given free rein to wiretap at will, God knows what they will come up with on any Democrat. Especially since John McCain rolled over for Bush and became his anointed heir. Remember, the Rezko trial begins Monday and Fitzgerald, who let Rove off the hook for outing Plame, is the prosecuter.
He has already been caught lying several times over about his connection to Rezko, and when it was that he realized he was a dubious dude.
Fitzgerald is even after Hillary for taking funds from a bank in Granada. Go to www.tomflo
Yes, that is a good question to ask of Mr. Oprama. Please let us know his answer.
His answer is that a Democrat in the White House will help to uncover Bush's criminality.
John, might I ask why does it matter if Obama has a serious point by point agenda? I've followed politics since you were in grade school and guess what buddy? Once a fellow ends up in the Oval Office and begins his debriefings, he's likely to regret any specific campaign pledges, which is why it's dumb to make any. What matters is that we don't elect another pea wit and criminal like Bush. Further, we can hope that whoever ends up as president has enough political capital as measured by a landslide victory and a legislature with sufficient majorities to affect some reasonable agenda. Obama appears far smarter than the present White House dim bulb occupant and he's got more energy and charisma then anyone else in the race. But even these assets may prove meaningless if the American people see fit to elect a do nothing, obstructionist GOP Senate and or House. It is my hope that the GOP loses both Houses and the presidency by sufficient margins to give Obama the ability he needs to do something positive or screw up, in which case he can be replaced in four years. I can only hope that he'll be able to eliminate some of the stench created by years of Republican incompetence.
Eloquence in presenting substantive information is a rare combination in presidential politics--an attribute characterized by few aspiring presidents and fewer presidents. Eloquence absent substance the Greeks called "sophistry". Perhaps you would prefer that term; it has always been pejorative. Hope is devoid of substance, and change is inevitable as a practical matter. Sen. Obama has chosen to void programmic specifics with emotional, albeit moving oratory. His distinguished academic background and achievements suggest underlying substance, his academic resume is his evidence of a unique qualification when combined with his oratorical skill. The problem, Mr. Ridley is that the single most egregious sin of an academic is plagiarism. His defense that Patrick was a long time friend who suggested he "copy" Patrick's oratory is no rationale: it is a sophomoric attempt to rationalize the wrong. Such a defense would or should result in a failure of conspiring students should they submit a paper for credit one had "cribbed" and another had permitted. Explanation if not remediation, dear Sir, is Professor Obama's responsibility.
He is a candidate, not an academic. The academic, he brings to the table. He offered no rationale, he offered an explanation of what happened. Now who amongst those who are currently campaigning, who is so original as to not have ever borrowed a phrase? We have lived with a president who has butchered the language, you ok with that, Trancendento? Is he original in his butchering of the language? How about his butchering of our armed forces? You cool with that?
Hope devoid of substance? Where do you get that from? Is that an original thought of yours? Look at your own post again when you suggest "remediation".
Your main concern with Obama is that he borrowed someone's words after the crimes Bush has committed? It is hard for us to recognize the authenticity of Obama becasue we are so used to Bush saying one thing and doing another, or his outright lies.
Biden and Dodd had decades of senatorial experience and were rejected by voters. Now is the right time for Obama or, as he would say, "the fierce urgency of now."
Why do you demand more of Obama than you do of Clinton?
Roger, this is a very well written response. You are right of course. Look how the first Bush's "Read my lips, no new taxes." came back to haunt him. I am worried about what the Congress will look like. The electorate may look at the last 8 years, and think that the best thing for the country is to have a presidency and congress controlled by different parties.
He makes it up as he goes along and the 'American Idol' crowd doesn't care enough to check out the facts...
http://www
Who Bush?
And what would you say about all of Hillary Clinton's lies?
Anyone who thinks that Obama lacks substance hasn't been paying attention. All of the substance you could ever want is here:
http://www
The man has a plan.. a truly great plan.
Anybody can have a good plan. Only few have the muscle to deliver. Hillary not only has the experience but the muscle, relationships and allies, developed over more time in the Senate.
But no support among the electorate.
Besides with the writers strike over and American Idol on, no one watched the debate besides those that already made up their mind. The wheels are in motion, the train left the station, sorry Hillary, can't stop, it is an Express train.
"Besides with the writers strike over and American Idol on, no one watched the debate..."
Isn't that a sad statement.
Yet often true -- and it was only on CNN (cable and net) and delayed broadcast on Univision so they could dub it into Spanish. It was as if they were making it hard to see.
Of course CNN.con (sic) did have an applause meter you could watch drop down whenever a moderator asked a question.
So it's up to each of us to combat this superficial view of Obama. A couple of days ago another HuffPo reader left a post containing a list of Obama's accomplishments. Maybe we should all have T-shirts printed with his "credits" so everyone can see what he has done, and we can get over this latest void-stopper in the media. It's just an excuse for media people to keep talking, you know, so that they can keep their goofy jobs.
"your future commander in chief:
(already the doubts at the Pentagon)
http://www
Your current commander in chief -- proven to be a liar:
http://blo
Gotcha!
Obama was right. The story checked out.
Obama: 1
Rightwing anger brigade: 0
LOL
FINALLY----
I am actually ELATED that there's a candidate who's running where as the PEOPLE OF THIS COUNTRY is witnessing -------
GREATEST attacks: words.
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
