Obama's the Perfect Candidate for the Sally Field Party

Actress Sally Field won an Oscar in 1979 for playing a union organizer in Norma Rae. Six years later, she won the same prized-award for her role in Places in the Heart, her acceptance speech earning its own special place in sound-bite history:

"...I've wanted more than anything to have your respect. The first time I didn't feel it, but this time I feel it, and I can't deny the fact that you like me, right now, you like me!"

That about sums up what the Democratic party strives for -- likeability. They fervently believe that if an American leader is "liked," then "the world" will like us. And if the world likes us, the possibility of war is diminished.

Sally Fields' impromptu phrase explains the phenomenon that is Barack Obama. On the face of it, his resume is not befitting that of a President in these complex times. Experience-wise, years of "community organizing" -- his longest held "position" -- is ridiculously insufficient.

His long personal associations with the blame-America-first: terrorist William Ayers, Pastor Jeremiah Wright, and wife Michelle -- not to mention his close association with the Chicago real estate "fixer" Tony Rezko -- would have already brought down 99 percent of any other presidential aspirant.

So if it's not experience or sound judgment that have elevated Senator Obama to the status of Presumptive Nominee of the Democratic Party, what has?

It's his likeability, the political asset that trumps all others in Left-world. Succinctly, the Left is dying for America to be liked again!

When European articles are written with titles such as "Obamamania! Europe Can't Get Enough!" it's confirmation to the Left that they have the right candidate. Hillary Clinton could have had 20 years in the Senate, and crafted important legislation, but she still wouldn't have had the style, looks, charm or "cool" the Left yearns for in its candidates.

Being liked, has long been central to the Left's identity. The playwright Arthur Miller says as much in his 1949 play, Death of a Salesman. The failed traveling salesman, Willy Loman, tries to impress upon his son Biff that success in life depends less on hard work and more on being "well liked" and having personal attractiveness. Biff breaks with his father when he recognizes the speciousness of "being liked" and realizes how it has led his father to live in a world of dreams and illusions. Kind of like the modern Democratic party believing that if Ahmadinejad "likes" Obama, the Iranian zealot will dismantle his nuclear program!

Harry Truman wasn't "liked" during his last year in office and had an approval rating of 22 percent. In retrospect, we know the tough decisions he made were not influenced by thoughts of his own popularity. The same can be said for President Bush, who has had to make even more difficult and heart-wrenching decisions -- decisions that have led to ZERO attacks against our country in almost seven years.

America is safer because seasoned men like Truman and Bush knew that being right is more important than being liked. It's something the modern Democratic party, as shown in its choice of Obama as its standard bearer, does not understand.

For, when all is said and done, the true goal of the Left, is to be able to gush from the proverbial world stage: "You like us, right now, you like us!"

Comments

[research]

Ah, Seth. You are a member of the blame America Never crowd, aren't you?

America was right to kill 20 million native Americans,America's Raygun was right to sell weapons to Iran in exchange of hostage release. America is right to torture. America's BushCo was right to ignore "Bin Laden determined to attack in the USA" so that the "Pearl harbor event" of 9/11 enabled PNAC.info goals of American world domination. America was right to over throw the shaw and so many other democratically elected leaders around the world. Americans Cheney was right that we should move to the "dark side" and become a "nation of men, not laws". America was right to enslave Africans for 200 years. America is NEVER WRONG.

That's what "right" wing means.

Seth do you forget that America has been loved, not just "liked" and it was good.

[nomoron]

"The same can be said for President Bush, who has had to make even more difficult and heart-wrenching decisions"

You've gotta be kidding. It was Harry Truman who made the decision to drop atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, wiping out hundreds of thousands in the blink of an eye. The shrub has never been faced with that kind of dilemma. Instead his administration led us down a path based on lies and cherry-picked intelligence. The right-wing has signed on to his dogma of stripping the citizenry of their right to privacy. Under his watch we"ve seen the constitution become merely a roadblock to attaining one"s goals, no matter how ill-conceived or self-serving. Forget about the rule-of-law. And all this was accomplished through the use of bumper-sticker slogans!

Seth, I think you folks on the right have a lot to answer for. As for my own motivations in this election, they are about re-establishing some semblance of what once made this nation a beacon of hope to others in the world. It"s about the rule-of law and holding those believing they"re above it accountable. It"s about believing the constitution is more than a piece of paper. It"s about integrity. None of these things have been evident in the last seven years.

[tbone99]

Bush was the likeable candidate in 2000, so ilikeability seems to cut both ways.

However when you state something as silly as America is safer because seasoned men like Bush knew that being right is more important than being liked I have to gag.Bush made his choices based upon how to profit his friends,In that sense and that sense only was he right!

And as for seasoned , the only seasoning Bush has is bbq sauce from feeding at the trough.

[rpence]

So long as Obama is liked for the right reasons, and I think he is, that's a good thing. The post mentions Harry Truman--well, Truman was an incumbent when his popularity ratings went down, so it's an understatement to say it's a weak analogy.

The writer is just pissed off so he has to trivialize the hard work and dedication that millions of people have invested in the Obama campaign. Yes, being liked is not the end all and be all. But I'll take someone with high positive ratings over someone like Clinton, whose negatives are in the stratosphere.

In addition to the BS Truman analogy, the Arthur Miller and Sally Field examples are also ridiculous. No wonder Seth concludes with the weakest example of all, praise for George W. Bush, who, until relatively recently, had popularity to burn, along with widespread support for his atrocity of a war.

If you don't take Obama seriously, fine. But if you want to discredit those of us who do, you'll need to do a much better job than this, Seth.

[Hastings]

Mr. Swirsky once again hits the bullseye with his keen observations of the shallowness of the left. When the left screams that everybody hates America what they are really saying is that their lazy, cowardly, and visionless fellow lefties in Western Europe hate us. If they would pay the slightest bit of attention to what has been happening in Western Europe they would know that the citizens of those countries are moving towards President Bush not away from him. Of course that won't matter to the lefties. Afterall, these are the folks who so easily turned there backs to the Iraqi people by not supporting their new and fragile constitutional democracy. They so easily were willing to throw their humanitarianism to the curb and not protect the Iraqi people from the indiscriminate mass muder of al-Qeada and the Iranian proxie thugs. They did this not because they had a better plan or vision. Oh no, they did this because their fellow lefties around the world were upset at America and we weren't "liked". They did this because it was more important to them to wallow in their hyperpartisan hatred of George Bush. The fact that they are willing to enthusiastically throw their support to a freshman Senator with little are no experience who trumpets a vauge and empty message of hope and change should not be surprising to anyone. Shallow yes, surprising no.

[standard]

Thank you for your helpful analysis.

Let's review: Folks who disagree with you are shallow, lazy, cowardly, visionless, hyperpartisan lefties obsessed with being liked, whose humanitarianism and attention to Western Europe are lacking. Rather, we should prize President Bush's remarkable international accomplishments, view protecting Iraqis from themselves and their neighbors as primarily America's responsibility-- whatever the cost in lives and dollars--and regard hope and change as bad.

Disagreeing with you: Bad. Hope and change: Bad. Creating coherent paragraphs: Bad. Preemptive war: Good. (Got it!)

I suppose that , to be consistent, you favor making Rhode Island and Wisconsin change their state flags. (The former bears the word "Hope" and the latter, less dramatically, "Forward". We ought not to have these cowardly, visionless messages of hope and change on public display, correct?)

[blarsen]

So what's wrong with being liked? After all, isn't the election just a popularity contest anyway. As a matter of fact, I don't think I've ever heard of anyone casting a vote for someone they hated, other than the republicans that were ordered to vote for Hillary by Rush Limbaugh. Using your logic I would suggest John McCain's campaign slogan should be "Vote for me--I'm a prick!" If your using hate as a yardstick for success, then George Bush has had a phenomenal presidency.

I found one of your lines perhaps unintentionally laughable:

"His long personal associations with the blame-America-first: terrorist William Ayers, Pastor Jeremiah Wright, and wife Michelle..."

You're condemning Obama for a "long, personal association" WITH HIS WIFE! Now I've heard the right wing try make Obama seem like he was deeply involved with some shady characters, but when you attack Barack Obama for associating with his wife, that's when you know he's been fully vetted by the RNC and they have absolutely NOTHING left to throw at him. The Rev.Wright issue is done. The William Ayers story went nowhere as soon as the media that ISN'T run by Rupert Murdoch or the Moonies realized it was a non-story.

Better luck next time. As always, I look forward to your next republican talking points rant.

[peorgietirebiter]

Seth,
I have to wonder why you're bothering to write about this. Are you trying to persuade or even give us pause? Your belief that Bush is an acceptable standard or reference point render any subsequent analysis catastrophically flawed. Like an architect with a warped t-square.

[shrinqrap]

Lets put to bed once and for all this unreasonable premise that an absence of any domestic terrorsm since 9/11 is somehow proof of the quality of Dubya Bush's presidency - a presidency that began by completely ignoring numerous red flags of imminent terrorism throughout the summer of 2001. "BinLaden determined to strike inside US", for example.

Heck, there were no domestic terror attacks in the remaining 7 years df Bill Clintons presidency after the first WTC attack in 1993. Do the RighTards give him credit for that?

This simplistic concept that no domestic terror attacks is evidence of ....something, reminds me of that old story of the guy walking down the street loudly snapping his fingers. A passer-by stops him and asks him why hes snapping his fingers and he replies "to keep the tigers away".

The passer-by then say 'thats silly; there are no tigers around here!" and the man says "see? its working!".........

No one in their right mind can believe that IF there had been ANY deranged but determined solo terrorists who wanted to cause serious death and destruction somewhere in our country, that they are somehow being stopped by George W Bush. Thye just arent here, and they arent trying.

Maybe Seth is right: its because they like us? (guffaw).............. Methinks young Seth should stick to what he does best. His HufPo bio claims that he's a "renowned baseball memorabilia collector"

[tbone99]

Not to mention Bush had memos warning of the attacks of 911 and yet let them happen anyway.

[standard]

You say, "On the face of it, [Obama's] resume is not befitting that of a President in these complex times."

I guess you must know!

Few of us have had the advantage of attending your alma mater, Dartmouth. All I have to show for my university days, for example, is a political science degree from one of those other Ivy League schools and degrees in finance and law--so you can imagine what a struggle it would be for me to grasp the nuances of government and political philosophy without input from an actual professional songwriter.

We mere progressives always appreciate having the insights of important conservative thinkers on which to draw, and your analogy between George W. Bush and Harry S. Truman was especially enlightening.

[dill]

According to you Seth, poor little Bush is unliked because he had to make a "difficult" decision and go to war with Iraq. You know the Iraq that supposedly had weapons of mass destruction, the Iraq that was supposedly responsible for the 9/11 attacks, and all the other LIES Bush used to convince this country that he was making a "difficult" decision that was a necessity for our safety, rather than for the real reason of controlling the oil in that country.

Oh, and honey, "ZERO attacks...in seven years". But you forgot to mention that ONE attack--you know the 9/11 attack--which your hero, Bush, DID NOTHING to prevent even though he was briefed about a possible attack by hijacked planes.

[WhatsThis]

Ah ha, read the bio. The author is just another baseball worshipping George Will wannabe.

Being liked is not the issue. The issue is not being loathed.

Let's start with the author's hero. George Bush. George had a very thin resume when running for office: drunk, drug abuser, deserter, failed oil man, failed baseball man, weak state govenor and no foreign policy experience. The uniter/decider / not devider, compassionate conservative, smaller govenment, balanced budgets and lower taxes failed at all of these except for lower taxes. The lower taxes part will be paid for by our children's children.

Obama's attaction is that he is renewing hope after years of mendacity in every aspect of the presidency. And that he is right on the issues about which Americans care, period.

[Citizenofreality]

Yes thank God for seasoned men like George Bush. His superior judgment has brought about an occupation of a sovereign nation based upon manufactured intelligence (lies), our diminished international reputation, and a domestic instability that threatens the well being of millions of American citizens. To say nothing of his disdain for the Constitution of the United States of America. Sorry Seth, your ideal President resembles a shoot em' up cowboy Daddy figure, I prefer a person of intelligence, good judgment and vision. "He who conquers others is strong, He who conquers himself is mighty." Lao Tzu.

[Horst]

Obama has never been to Continental Europe (sort of reminds one of a certain occupant of the White House). I think Sally Field has.

[FZliveson]

Yeah...Bush is seasoned.
His goose is almost cooked too.
About ready to stick a fork in him and toss him on the table
of history to be devoured...the place he says will be the final
judge of his presidency.

[anon004]

Mr. Swrirsky, you've overlooked (at least) one problem with your analysis of Bush's not caring that we are "liked" in the world. The problem with that mindset is that not only are we hated by our enemies (who would have hated us anyway, without us doing anything stupid like waste 4000 American lives in an occupation we can't win), but we are also hated by our allies, as well. It then becomes tough to do anything in a multi-lateral way, which is how most problems are going to be solved in the 21st century.

BTW, I don't think Obama cares if we are "liked" in the world either, if you mean "liked" as most junior high school girls do when they want to be in the popular group at school. What Obama wants and will work toward is for us to be respected, which is what adults care about, at least those who are not sociopaths.

[eshalom]

Just curious, anon004, don't junior high boys worry about being liked? The sexism on this blog is so pervasive it would be impossible to clean it up. You would simply have to start over. It's much worse at Huffpo than any of the other blogs I scan for political analysis and commentary.

[anon004]

Sorry, eshalom, I'm female, and I'm writing from my own experience of junior high, lo those many years ago (and it was MANY years ago). The boys may have wanted to be liked, but, not having been a boy, I have no personal experience with that. No offense, but I really think you would get more out of HuffPo if you actually read the points and counterpoints on the topics themselves, rather than going through looking for hints of sexism (which may or may not be there). Being the PC Police is usually neither enlighting nor fun.