i just saw an interview with the grandmother and uncle of barack obama in kenya.
though we have seen and heard much of the families and early lives of the candidates, this short segment was something to see.
i hope that it will be repeated again for others to see, as well.
his life-story and background seem so unique, one could only guess at the qualities and new depth he would be bringing to american politics.
something we have never seen before.

I've probably commented about this elsewhere before, but when I was interning on Obama's Senate campaign, I remember one time he returned to the campaign office and shouted, totally un-self-consciously, "Obama's in the house!" It was weird and funny, but it was also plainly not a put-on to prove his cool, which was kind of cool.

Thanks for these types of posts, everybody's laughing at them.

As for everyone else, please go to appearances by Obama and the rest, ask them questions about the huge flaws in their policies, and then upload their responses.

We need to do the real reporting that the MSM (and the young, enamored Ezra) won't do.

It's not that this isn't reporting, but it sort or assumes that there's a "my generation" youthfulness the Old Folks Don't Get. It's a mistake, I think, to overstate this. Youth is not such a mystery, especially to people who've been there.

Second, grandeur notwithstanding, I don't think we've seen any appreciable test of whether Obama's "progressivism" is really something voters are signing on for, or if this great "Mind changing" is actually happening. If it were, I'd expect far throatier invocations for actual changes and less the vague cheers that are more for one person and unspecified change than for a movement with specific goals. A nation that contemplates nominating both Mike Huckabee and Barack Obama as the two main candidates has not, I think, necessarily said it wants the most progressive changes; mostly I think it says we want something more hopeful, and less negative, than what we have now.

I'm all for less negative; I've never been opposed to hope. But I think time's almost up on dealing, in specifics, with just what Obama wnats to do and how he's planning to go about it, and in that sense TLB is right - this whole process yearns for more substance, less romance.

Last time New Hampshire did this, I remember waiting three hours, in the cold, in crowded venues, for this mysterious John Kerry guy to come speak.

Funny how nobody remembers...

weboy, fair enough, but keep in mind that there's also a large market for people peddling these sorts of platitudes. For all the mockery of "Unity08" (andit's well-deserved), there is a large market for these vague promises of "unity" and "hope."

Look, anyone who wants to know what Obama plans to do in office can read his platforms on his website. As far as a public persona goes, he wants to attract all those people who just want "all this partisan bickering to end." Because if he doesn't deliver that rhetoric to him, they'll stay home or flock to someone else who will. Why should Obama risk leaving an opening for someone to draw votes away from him on a platform of, "both Democrats and Republicans are wrong. Support someone else!"

I'm not saying that this is the best strategy, or even a working strategy, but it's Obama's strategy. Let's see how it plays out.

this whole process yearns for more substance, less romance.

gosh, weboy, what is wrong with a little romance?
clearly, there is substance to barack obama and there will be ample examination and discussion of his positions in the weeks to come. one can be very sure of that.
the road ahead is still very long.and my guess is that by its end, it is going to seem even longer than it is.
i shudder to think of these next weeks. they will be hard on all of us.
i think that most of the people that are cheering have not been drugged or brainwashed into being there.
i also imagine that most of the people there have not taken leave of their senses.
for many, it is a moment of authenticity and conviction
but let young people and others of us have a beautiful moment of engagement. it has been aeons since there has been this kind of exhilaration for numbers of people.
as an older person,i am delighted to see young crowds cheering and drawing inspiration.
maybe it is not an intensive policy discussion, but there will be many of those yet to come.

but what a beautiful breath of air this is! if only for the moment... and it is important for some of us to feel happy again, if even for a moment.
maybe it is not a "rational" moment, but after all we have been through in the last decade, doesnt it feel good to see some celebration, people paying attention with a smile on their faces and some hope, where there has been so little?

it is good for some of us to feel passionate and awakened, instead of depressed,powerless or choleric. and if we can be inspired by this, for a few hours, a month, an election or a lifetime, i think it is quite thrilling.

"it has been aeons since there has been this kind of exhilaration for numbers of people."

not really that long ago since Bill Clinton had such enthusiastic support for "change," and I think this is what is fueling cynicism among those over, say 35.

Obama's recent mentions of "progressive" do slightly raise hopes, however.

maybe it is not a "rational" moment, but after all we have been through in the last decade, doesnt it feel good to see some celebration, people paying attention with a smile on their faces and some hope, where there has been so little?

The problem is, we REALLY cannot afford to have a non-rational "moment." The stakes are too high for us to take a "moment for us."

The primary campaign is a lightning round; the road ahead is not all that long, and this thing will be over before you know it. We simply aren't in a position to stop and smell the roses.

If Obama's the frontrunner, he needs to be subjected to a searing and skeptical examination to make sure he's cut out to win in November. A lot of the Obama-ites are awfully prickly whenever their guy is subjected to scrutiny, but it's in Obama's best interests. This is especially true in Obama's case, as he hasn't yet faced a true electoral test, having won his Senate seat by default. The general election will present Obama with a shitstorm the likes of which he's never seen, and we need to have some reason to believe he can withstand it before we nominate him.

So far, he's doing well. According to Drudge (which I feel stupid and kind of dirty even writing, but still), there is an "epic turnout" for the Democratic primary today, and they're actually running out of ballots. I don't think you can easily dismiss that kind of appeal (assuming the record turnout isn't for Hillary and Edwards, which I think is safe).

> It's not that this isn't
> reporting, but it sort or
> assumes that there's a "my
> generation" youthfulness the
> Old Folks Don't Get. It's a
> mistake, I think, to
> overstate this. Youth is not
> such a mystery, especially
> to people who've been there.
>
> Second, grandeur
> notwithstanding, I don't
> think we've seen any
> appreciable test of whether
> Obama's "progressivism" is
> really something voters are
> signing on for, or if this
> great "Mind changing" is
> actually happening.

Minor anecdote-point: my spouse and children became big Obama supporters in 2004 (esp after the Kerry defeat) and drove a long way to attend Obama's Springfield announcement. But as more details of Obama's positions have developed (or not developed, in many cases) my spouse has become less and less impressed by Obama. But my kids are still on board.

FWIW.

Cranky

You guys act like you didn't see John Kerry -- he of the veteran Democrats, he of the constant numbers and policy -- go down in a whimper against a barely coherent GWB. And it was not about the issues. It was mudslinging and fearmongering that Kerry could not shake off because his public persona kept being rather bland and therefore subject to all sorts of shadings.

It remains to be seen if Obama can ride this wave all the way to the the nomination, but for all the contempt you guys exhibit towards the American electorate this is how they choose their leader (and is thus the reality you have to deal with): personality and charisma, not competence or policies or even good communication skills. Obama is simply the best salesman out there right now. He's also energizing a group of people who might become lifelong Dems or progressives if he plays his cards right. For that alone, he's going to be a mainstay in the Democratic party for many, many years regardless of what happens this year.

However, the "get off my lawn stupid kids!" sentiment on these threads is highly, highly amusing.

Ezra: You should write about Obama's Work/Life balance ideas. That's right up your street.

"There have been many politicians with undeniable appeal to the young. Howard Dean. Ron Paul. At one point, John McCain. But none of them have been recognizable to the young. Obama is"

Yeah, but Obama is younger than all those guys. So aren't you really just saying, "Younger people see the younger guy as the younger guy, and they like that?" Why is that such a penetrating insight?

maybe it is not a "rational" moment, but after all we have been through in the last decade, doesnt it feel good to see some celebration, people paying attention with a smile on their faces and some hope, where there has been so little?

The contrast with Bush mumbling to reporters before he jets off to quack across the Middle East is... refreshing.

But my big fear with Obama is that his 'new politics' message is susceptible to being co-opted by pseudo-unity pols, like the gathering of old farts in Norman, OK. We've already seen David Boren talk about the 'true test' of Obama's campaign meaning a bipartisan cabinet and other bullshit.

I hope that what Ezra has noticed implies that Obama is aware of this risk. It's not going to be the same kind of treatment that Gore received in 2000; it's going to manifest itself through an attempt to swaddle and circumscribe him.

As someone who came to age with the current Bush (I'm 23 and was alive for Regan, Bush I and Clinton but really wasn't all that politically engaged in elementary and middle school) the Obama attraction is pretty easy to understand. We have a president who has literally no understanding of the english language, no effective public speaking abilities, and no desire whatsoever to unite the country under a set of mutually agreed upon goals. Beyond being a strong departure from the current administration, if you were to read his books, look at his record or his positions as stated on his website you would realize Obama is substantive candidate in addition to being a charming public persona. Furthermore we should want a candidate to rally youth support and political engagement, as we will be key players in the new direction of the Country, and we should ideally be politically knowledgeable.

the attraction, to me, of Obama's 'new politics' message is that it is the one co-opting "new politics" from the pseudo-unity pols.

For David Boren to oppose Obama effectively makes David Boren the opponent of "unity," rather than its advocate. And that's a good thing, assuming Obama pulls it off.

How do the Unity '08 people reconcile themselves to the fact that if they run a third party candidate that people actually pay attention to and vote for, it would actually make the country even more divided than it is now! Instead of Republicans v. Democrats, it would be Republicans v. Democrats v. Bloombergians or whatever. That would, like, triple the divisiveness!

Jacqueline, I want a President, not a lover. Romance isn't what I need; I need ideas, proposals, a sense of what comes next that's more than just "we'll win them over with our great ideas!"

Second, I hope I'm not getting lumped in with some notion of dissing the electorate - I think a lot of people see the positivity and uplift and potential for change in Obama and for them, that's what they wanted. As I've said all along, I'll vote for the man if he winds up being the nominee - I'm willing to accept on faith what I have yet to hear. But as to the notion that Obama has been "substantive" or is "substantive" on his website - I think Stef shows that the measure of this is what your criteria is. Virtually everyone in this race looks "substantive" compared to George W Bush... which really says more about how far things have fallen than that what we have, necessarily, is a vast improvement.

"jacqueline, i want a president, not a lover."

i dont want a lover back in the white house either.
:-)

Hopefully, Obama will really wow the youngsters by texting in the middle of a speech wearing a hoodie and an ipod. Ezra will cream.

At some point, this blind AMERICAN IDOL worship of Obama will recede and he'll actualy have to come up with what he's goingto do besides HOPE and INSPIRE.

Stephanie Miller couldn't articulate any of Obama's policie when challenged and along with Andrew Sullivan's new daddy-crush, the Dems better be careful with their emotional infatuation.

Of course, Kucinich is unelectable in the face of such dreamy pragmatists.

I'm finding this line of thinking confusing. Obama doesn't put policy in his speeches. But his platform is fully laid out. Thanks to Johbn Edwards' example, all of the candidates have full and detailed policy agendas. We've talked, at this site, incessantly about his health care plans and energy plans, and I've also mentioned his government reform, Iraq withdrawal, tech policy, and tax proposals. He's also been notably specifics -- more so than the others -- about how he'd conduct diplomacy and his approach to foreign affairs.

In some cases -- i.e, the lack of mandate on the health care plan -- i think the policy is subpar, and worth taking issue with. But there's plenty of it.

I think some of you older people really overlook the importance of hope. I'm 25, for my entire life people have been doing nothing but telling us that we don't really have the power to do shit. The Clinton's spent more time telling us what we couldn't get accomplished than trying to get something accomplished. The congressional dems hid under their beds like cowards and told us they needed to keep their powder dry. All the while, Bush got everything he wanted no matter how low his approval went all because he wouldn't back down and he seemed so much bigger than they did.

Obama doesn't tell us what we can't do. He doesn't try to limit us before we even get started. He promises to deliver, and he promises to do so by the only way we've actually seen work: Through sheer force of will and the power of personality. That has a powerful appeal among the youth that people who lived before the age of bullshit will never understand.

There is a problem brewing for the Obama campaign and that is the Muslim problem.

Many feel that they can make a good case that Obama was a practicing Muslim. His father was a practicing Muslim with 3 wives (no divorce), and his step father and close relatives are practicing Muslims.

If all of this is documented, it could be a real body-blow to his campaign in the general election.

You offered no evidence that Obama is a practicing Muslim, because you can't, and he isn't. Obama met his father once as a child. He was raised by a mother and grandparents who were Christian. If you try and push these xenophobic smears on my site, Fred, you'll be banned. This is your only warning.

"Obama doesn't put policy in his speeches. But his platform is fully laid out."

Where? And at some point in a genuine debate with the opposition, he's going to have to VERBALLY CONFRONT Iraq, corporatism, healthcare, etc. Or not, as long as he looks good doing it.

I'm not immune to Obama's charisma and I'd like to see him get in there if I didn't feel he's moe of the same. Why does the left insist on capitulating to the right?

And there are a few gay folk out there not given hope by that gay-hatin' preacher Obama has been trying to keep low.

I'm certain Obama will continue to embrace lobbyists and the corporations that have funded him in the past. And his excuse for not pursuing impeachment is another Democratic waffle and weakness.

"his father was a practicing muslim with three wives"...and no divorce, mind you!!

many of us do not see the worth of a person diminished in any way by the color of their skin, their ancestry or the religious practices of their parents.
this was just proven in iowa.
and lucky for all of us, and thanks to you, if we didnt know that barack's father was a practicing muslim with three wives, we do now!

thank you, el viajero!

For David Boren to oppose Obama effectively makes David Boren the opponent of "unity," rather than its advocate. And that's a good thing, assuming Obama pulls it off.

It's not going to be presented as opposition, though: it's going to be presented as a circumscribing endorsement: 'Obama has said this, and this is what he must mean by it'.

Obama doesn't tell us what we can't do. He doesn't try to limit us before we even get started. He promises to deliver, and he promises to do so by the only way we've actually seen work: Through sheer force of will and the power of personality.

Like I've said before, one way to describe the difference between being 25 and 35 is the word 'potential'.

Edwards' individual pitch is through amelioriation, in the sense that it does really focus on people who have made big life choices -- spouse, job, kids, where to live -- and see their life on a settled path: they just want to get over bumps in the road.

Still, I'm open to jacqueline's argument that older Obama supporters feel they can bequeath potential to their kids' generation. I'm also open to the argument that Obama's appeal to potential is offering a more palatable version of Bush's reliance upon people's tendency to over-estimate their wealth. (Good little discussion here.)

And the appeal to collective potential is, of course, a way to go beyond the personal.

(Ezra: can you get the admins to do something about the timeout on the captcha? It's a mess.)

Ezra will cream. At some point, this blind AMERICAN IDOL worship of Obama will recede and he'll actualy have to come up with what he's goingto do besides HOPE and INSPIRE.

I think this is unfair to Ezra. I've seen blind worship of Obama from some commenters here, and I find it as distasteful as the next person. But I haven't seen it from Ezra.

Attempting to understand and describe the nature of Obama's appeal, and the reasons for it, is not in any sense "blind worship." It's not necessarily, even, buying into the appeal. Ezra has written about why Huckabee appeals to voters; does that mean he's a Huckabee worshipper?

Believe me, I understand the Obama backlash; many of his most vocal supporters are almost cultlike in their un-reasoning devotion to him, and the concomitant rage against anti-Obama heretics. But give Ezra a little credit - he's not one of them.

I wasn't refering to Ezra but the collective Obama-maniacs. I just sense Ezra buying into it, a form of wishful projection, which is sweet, but we need something more these days.

(assuming the record turnout isn't for Hillary and Edwards, which I think is safe).

Heh. I'm stupid.