Explaining the Left's Hunger for Obama

He has passed no significant legislation, is head of no official movement, has never run a business and, until he gave a speech at the Democratic National Convention in 2004, barely anyone had ever heard of him. And yet, Barack Obama appears poised to be the Democrats' standard bearer, with a following that now consistently fills basketball arenas, in state after state, with 20,000 supporters who hang on his every word (or sneeze), cheer his pronouncements, and regularly swoon into faints.

What can possibly explain the cult-like following surrounding this silver-tongued, political neophyte? There must be something more.

That "more" is a deep hunger among the left for someone who can restore, not the country, but the battered faith liberals have in themselves.

The last four decades have not been kind to the left. A thumbnail timeline elucidates this:

Riots at the 1968 Democratic Convention showing a party in total disarray; the Lion of Liberalism, Senator Ted Kennedy, trying to save his political life instead of Mary Jo Kopechne's at Chappaquiddick; the landslide defeat of George McGovern in 1972; and the disaster that was known as the presidency of Jimmy Carter (1976-1980).

In the '80s, Ronald Reagan successfully won the Cold War without a shot being fired, while Democrats were left holding their "No Nukes" placards, and Walter Mondale and Michael Dukakis were overwhelmingly defeated in the elections of 1984 and 1988, respectively.

Although, Bill Clinton's victory in 1992 was the last time the left pumped its collective fist in the air, his presidency was irrevocably damaged by numerous sex scandals, the last of which ended in impeachment. Add in the debacle of "Hillarycare" and it's no wonder that the left considered the Clinton presidency a great let down.

In the 2000s, the defeats continued with the election of the supposedly "stupid" or "evil" (take your pick) George W. Bush in 2000. There was the defeat of Senate Majority Leader, Tom Daschle in 2002 (coupled with the House and Senate falling to the Republicans) and 2004 brought the defeat of John Kerry (a candidate Democrats never liked) again to Bush.

All these defeats -- along with the tragic deaths of liberal icons over the years like Bobby Kennedy and Paul Wellstone -- make obvious why the last four decades have eroded the psyche of those on the left.

And then came Obama who like a savior from nowhere has made liberals feel good about who they are again -- because feeling good is what mostly defines them.

This fall, the Republican candidate will wage a standard campaign against Obama, highlighting the truly vast differences on policy between them. But most Obama supporters don't care about those differences. The enthusiasm they have for The Candidate -- in light of his tissue-paper-thin résumé and lack of substantive new ideas -- confirms that the only thing they truly care about is his unparalleled ability to restore their long-dormant good feeling about being liberal again.

Comments

[mabelle55]

I think it's much simpler than the left "wanting to feel good about itself again."

Politically speaking, voters who are the most active in this campaign and who are giving their support overwhelmingly to Sen. Barack Obama came of age politically during George W. Bush's presidency.

But this same generation of voters was old enough to see Bill Clinton impeached over lying about his relationship with an intern, and the drawn-out media circus that accompanied it.

So, it's no surprise that Obama is getting the young firebrands. It's no different than voters who came of political age during Richard Nixon's Watergate.

[splinteredglass]

And you remember, in 1972, what happened to George McGovern and his youthful minions (the voting age was lowered from 21 to 18 )that year? He won exactly one state (plus the District of Columbia) in the election. That's how much credence Obama's youth brigade gets.

[PulSamsara]

Barack Obama for President of the UNITED States of America.

[tea in the harbor]

What Obama has tapped into is the absolute disgust of the American People with not only the republicans, but the ineffective and childish tone of government in general. The democrats have jumped on board because the blatant abuse of power of this administration has, at long last, given them something in common with the REAL people who build and nurture this country. Obama says he will bring both sides to the table, the hope he inspires feels good, and he will have my vote, but I am sick to death of "Bi-Partisan efforts." I want NON-Partisan! If two thieves are about to rob you, and they each agree to only take half of what you have, YOU have still lost everything! When a President is elected, rather than becoming the leader of his or her party, they should RESIGN from it! Now THAT would inspire HOPE!

[LyricalLexicon]

I like that line about two thieves, Democrats and Republicans are both corporate owned but the republicans don't hide they pro-business leanings as much. This bi-partisan foolishness won't work as long as the corporate contributors have their own agendas and financial influence over politicians.

[tea in the harbor]

The real kicker is that we could do something about it if we chose to, but we're too busy paying their bills! If we all got together and shut off the money tap(say, on the fourth of July) it would get their attention. If we were clear on one demand, maybe a corporate death penalty for the worst of them, we could at least force a conversation. Probably we won't, and maybe that means we have exactly what we deserve.

[BUSHsurvivor]

He came at the right time. When people speak of "change" what they are really saying is change from the evil, dirty tricks of the past 7 1/2 years of Bush and his fellow rethugs who all but ignored the dems and their opinions.

The thing that scares me is this...Barack seems to have taken it a step further and has everyone thinking he will create Utopia. What does that do? You will have a lot of disappointed new voters who may get turned off for future elections, you may have a democratic party that will remain split and future, experienced black candidates may have a hard sell running for top office...should the current front-runner be nothing more than a big let down.

[AnninCA]

I think his supporters are almost identical to the religious right in their hatred.

They will simply be focused on "hating" one person or another as the "enemy" of their leader.

It's a very sick strategy and one that I won't endorse.

[Citizenofreality]

Well I'm truly sorry you feel that way AnninCA. I support Obama and my hope is that we can all come together and work for a better future. Don't mistake the vehemence of a few for the attitude of many. And Seth you are terribly cynical for such a young man, I hope you find something that makes you less fearful and much happier.

[josephjsalas]

No. Barack cannot create utopia. But having
our sights set high would be a nice "CHANGE"

[Donk]

Better than Bush! When Obama went to college he got an education and graduated with honors. Bush abused alcohol, drugs and probably himself. Hopefully, Obama can turn this nation around from the mess that Cheney/Bush have put us in. Normally, patriotism is the last refuge of scoundrels but for Cheney and his sock puppet W, it was their first. "Either you're with us or against us", "deadender­s","troops are fungible" and other drivel...

[EspritDeVoltaire]

Perhaps you might consider something called "Research" next time prior to pontificating on someone's record. Viewing your Bio, I'm curious as to how you migrated to Politics from Entertainment. Was foot tapping involved?

[BrooklynLager]

Okay, not to get ad hominem, but I was just scanning the intros to your past entries. This is (by FAR) my favorite:

"When you really think about the crop of Democratic candidates for president, it's clear that their best hope to win in 2008, is not even on the playing field. That current, non-candidate is Al Gore. He's the only one who can match the experience, accomplishments and gravitas of [wait for it.....] Rudy Giuliani."

*sad trombone*

[Covenant]

Nice. It's too bad that we don't elect people via American Idol panel then, since there's more of gravel than of gravitas to that old guy. McCain is a war hero, but not every war hero deserves public office, especially not high office. As a lackluster soldier but a platinum standard patriot, if McCain want to apply his experience somewhere, it should be in Veteran Affairs or the Joint Chiefs, and not President. If you can't set a good tone or a good direction for the country, you've already failed one of your biggest duties as president.

[Covenant]

Note, that's in support of what Lager said.

[OSUMercutio]

OK, let's list Hillary's accomplishments:

1. Voting for the Iraq war
2. Voting for the Patriot Act
3. Supporting NAFTA
4. Screwing up the best chance for Health Care in the last quarter century (Democratic Congress plus Democratic president = failure and disappointment)

[hillaryis44]

5. Campaign mismanagement of historic proportions; a failure of leadership that has produced an organizational, operational and financial debacle.

After what is now claimed as 35 years of experience, her supporters probably anticipated a more competent "solution" and "actions."

[IowaGirl]

Hunger among the Left for Obama? Surely you jest. Those of us on the left side of the political spectrum have no one left to vote FOR. Edwards came much closer than Obama ever would. Obama talks a more progressive talk than Hillary, but I don't see much difference at all when you examine their policies and votes. It would be nice to have an African American president, but that's not going to affect policies and programs much.

He hasn't been a leader on what I see as the two most important issues in 08: global warming and the war. Tell me again why he wants to be President? So he can bring us all together? I don't WANT to be together with Republicans. Anyone still in that party after the Bush years is either completely cynical, ethically bankrupt, deluded by religious issues, hiding something, or stupid.

[OSUMercutio]

Sure, I liked Edwards. But how many progressive accomplishments can you attribute to John Edwards while he was in the Senate? I don't deny that he might have done great things as president, but voting for Edwards, or Obama, or anyone else for that matter, requires a significant leap of faith.

[MBA1957]

IowaGirl,
You are speaking truth. This morning I heard that Ralph Nader is throwing his hat in the race. Now, there's a candidate who promotes change. He's the true liberal's progressive candidate.

[DemandTruth]

Wow man. Great hit piece on liberals throughout the years! Way to go! Although I would argue that Obama's opponent doesn't have exactly the BEST resume - as her biggest attempt at anything FAILED MISERABLY. And I guess you forgot the entire FIRST term of Clinton where there was no sex scandal. And I guess you forgot the part where it was the Democrats who ended up cleaning up after the Republicans' miserable management and had to restore this country's economy, which was then trashed again by the DEFINITELY "stupid" AND "evil" Bush the Second.

And I just LOVE the way you again paint Obama supporters as cultish followers - completely and ignorantly unaware that not only is it not true, it only makes our resolve STRONGER (so thanks)!

And the bit at the end about liberals loving to feel good? Well, I'd say ask Larry Craig about feelin' good. And Mark Foley, etc. Here's the difference, my friend:

Republicans love to FEEL GOOD by screwing everything and anything that's not nailed down, including the American People.

Democrats love to feel good by DOING good things for this country and for the Americans in this country. We believe EVERYONE should get the chance to feel good, whereas Republicans believe feelin' good is ONLY reserved for them and their rich crony friends.

So keep on keepin' on with your sly hit pieces. They obviously make YOU feel GREAT!

[inthemachine]

What is significant legislation and insignificant? nuclear weapons, government accountability? yeah, you're right...no biggie, I'm sure you've done something much more significant!
You've taken a few lines from the Clinton Clan without referencing them... pretty irresponsible.
I'm sure ALL his supporters are exactly like the bloggers... a mass of nearly 10 Mill, so ready for a "savior" they're blinded by the facts.
give me a break, life is a little more complicated - as are we - than what you're given us credit for.

[Citizenofreality]

I really believe you should stick to song writing.

[bellecloche]

Oh, I absolutely LOVE articles that assume voters' motivations, don't you? It is by far the most scientific, least presumptuous, most productive way to contribute to the political dialog! It is so modest and respectful to psycho-analyze an entire voting block by reiterating the results of the past 8 elections in under 15 paragraphs. This article is SO full of SUBSTANCE - statistics, poll results, demographic studies, academic citations - I'm going to quote it in my next paper on the American electorate. The author has truly demonstrated himself to be a socio-political expert on the very complex issues paralyzing our democratic process. By telling the right what they want to hear, it will have an utterly CATACLYSMIC effect on the entire election year. We can barely predict how far this will go. Clap clap clap.

[batguano]

Hera! Hear!

I am FAR less charitable and less inclined to satire or sarcasm in response to this vapid bit of useless drivel. This person evidently actually takes himself and his views seriously. His previous comments show how lacking in substance or relevance his positions are. I would that he take the last 7 years of utter DISASTER for our nation brought by the treasonous Bush regime more seriously instead of spewing this contemptuous right-wing slander and weak shite. Our nation desperately needs a change and this ignorant attack on candidate Obama, regardless of what one thinks of his positions, is just so much a self-serving useless mumble of deceit. He should stick to what some thing he is good at and not this infuriating and ignorant crap.

[AnninCA]

I've decided it's mostly a reaction to the war. I remember reading about post-war reactions in mass hysteria.

This has a similar feel.

[JB2]

We haven't heard much from Seth since October of '06, when he confidently predicted that the Republicans would keep their majorities in both the House and Senate. Or before that, when he proclaimed that military genius Tommy Franks would make a great presidential candidate.

I think he should acknowledge the stupidity of his previous posts before he's allowed any future ones.