CNN repeats smear of Obama supporters as "creepy" and "cult-like"
SUMMARY: CNN's Carol Costello said that audience response at a Barack Obama rally is "a scene some increasingly find not inspirational, but 'creepy,' " quoting columnists who have likened Obama supporters to members of a cult or described their enthusiasm as "creepy." On-screen text during Costello's report read: "OBAMA-MANIA BACKLASH" and "PASSION 'CULT-LIKE' TO SOME." Washington Post columnist Charles Krauthammer similarly cited other writers to make the same assertion: "ABC's Jake Tapper notes the 'Helter-Skelter cult-ish qualities' of 'Obama worshipers,' what Joel Stein of the Los Angeles Times calls 'the Cult of Obama.' "
On the February 15 edition of CNN's The Situation Room, host Wolf Blitzer described "so-called Obama-mania": "Obama has some very passionate supporters out there and some are suggesting some may be a little bit too passionate." Contributor Carol Costello said that audience response at an Obama rally is "a scene some increasingly find not inspirational, but 'creepy' " and then cited columns by Los Angeles Times columnist Joel Stein, conservative New York Times columnist David Brooks, and Time columnist Joe Klein, all of whom likened Obama supporters to members of a cult or described their enthusiasm as "creepy." On-screen text during Costello's report read: "OBAMA-MANIA BACKLASH" and "PASSION 'CULT-LIKE' TO SOME."
Additionally, on-screen text of the word "creepy" was shown overlaying a crowd of Obama supporters.
Costello reported that "some" find it "creepy" that Obama supporters "wildly respond" to him, "chanting enthusiastically." But "chanting enthusiastically" at political rallies is common; rallies for John McCain in recent weeks have frequently featured supporters chanting "Mac is Back!"
Like Costello, Washington Post columnist Charles Krauthammer cited parts of Stein's and Klein's columns in his February 15 column. Krauthammer also quoted from a blog post by ABC senior national correspondent Jake Tapper. Krauthammer wrote: "ABC's Jake Tapper notes the 'Helter-Skelter cult-ish qualities' of 'Obama worshipers,' what Joel Stein of the Los Angeles Times calls 'the Cult of Obama.' " Krauthammer continued: "Obama's Super Tuesday victory speech was a classic of the genre. Its effect was electric, eliciting a rhythmic fervor in the audience -- to such rhetorical nonsense as 'We are the ones we've been waiting for. (Cheers, applause.) We are the change that we seek.' " "Helter Skelter" is the name Charles Manson gave to his idea of a coming race war, which he thought the murders committed by his followers would hasten.
From the February 15 edition of CNN's The Situation Room:
BLITZER: Also, the Obama phenomenon has gone too far for some. You're going to find out who's calling the intense enthusiasm surrounding his campaign -- and I'm quoting now -- "cult-like."
[...]
BLITZER: Obama has some very passionate supporters out there, and some are suggesting some may be a little bit too passionate. Let's go to Carol Costello. She's watching this story for us. What can you tell us about this so-called Obama-mania that's going on?
COSTELLO: Well, you know, Wolf, you've heard the criticism of Barack Obama: he's all flash and no substance. But now critics have taken that one step farther, saying the Obama campaign seems dangerously close to becoming a cult of personality.
[begin video clip]
COSTELLO: He takes the stage, and his supporters go wild. Cheering. Some crying. Some shouting, "I love you!"
OBAMA: And my faith in the American people has been vindicated because they are ready for change.
CROWD: Obama! Obama! Obama!
COSTELLO: Many political observers say they've never seen anything like it. Thousands wait in line to see him, and it seems with every speech, they always latch onto Obama's three favorite words.
OBAMA: Yes, we can.
COSTELLO: Obama supporters wildly respond, chanting enthusiastically along with their candidate. But it's a scene some increasingly find not inspirational but "creepy." L.A. Times columnist Joel Stein calls this Obama outpouring "Obamaphilia," although he admits he's fallen for it too. Others call it cult-like. Conservative columnist David Brooks compares Obama to a messiah and his supporters to the members of the Hare Krishna. Soon, Brooks says, Obama's people ... [will] be selling flowers at airports. Time magazine's Joe Klein writes writes, "Obama's message is becoming dangerously self-referential. The Obama campaign all too often is about how wonderful the Obama campaign is," he says. All of this is not lost on Obama's opponents.
CLINTON [video clip]: There's a big difference between us: speeches versus solutions. Talk versus action. You know, some people may think words are change. But you and I know better. Words are cheap. I know it takes work.
COSTELLO: But others say the criticism is unfair. Obama does talk policy. But Berekley's George Lakoff says at this moment in time, Democrats want something different. "Yes, we can" may sound empty, but Lakoff says voters understand it intuitively.
LAKOFF: He's comparing himself to not only Hillary but other Democrats who have said "No, we can't. We can't overcome Bush."
[end video clip]
COSTELLO: And Lakoff says the pundits just don't understand that, but the voters do. But even Obama supporters are a little mystified by Obamaphilia. Joel Stein wrote in the L.A. Times, "The dude is Urkel with a better tailor." He went on to say, though, but how you can root against a guy who believes he can change the world? Wolf?
BLITZER: A lot of our viewers remember Urkel. I don't know if Jack Cafferty does, but I certainly do. All right, Carol, thanks very much. Let's go to Jack Cafferty. He's got "The Cafferty File." Jack?
From Krauthammer's February 15 Washington Post column:
Interestingly, Obama has been able to win these electoral victories and dazzle crowds in one new jurisdiction after another, even as his mesmeric power has begun to arouse skepticism and misgivings among the mainstream media.
ABC's Jake Tapper notes the "Helter-Skelter cult-ish qualities" of "Obama worshipers," what Joel Stein of the Los Angeles Times calls "the Cult of Obama." Obama's Super Tuesday victory speech was a classic of the genre. Its effect was electric, eliciting a rhythmic fervor in the audience -- to such rhetorical nonsense as "We are the ones we've been waiting for. (Cheers, applause.) We are the change that we seek."
That was too much for Time's Joe Klein. "There was something just a wee bit creepy about the mass messianism," he wrote. "The message is becoming dangerously self-referential. The Obama campaign all too often is about how wonderful the Obama campaign is."
You might dismiss as hyperbole the complaint by the New York Times's Paul Krugman that "the Obama campaign seems dangerously close to becoming a cult of personality." Until you hear Chris Matthews, who no longer has the excuse of youth, react to Obama's Potomac primary victory speech with "My, I felt this thrill going up my leg." When his MSNBC co-hosts tried to bail him out, he refused to recant. Not surprising for an acolyte who said that Obama "comes along, and he seems to have the answers. This is the New Testament."
I've seen only one similar national swoon. As a teenager growing up in Canada, I witnessed a charismatic law professor go from obscurity to justice minister to prime minister, carried on a wave of what was called Trudeaumania.
For PERSPECTIVE, let's see what THE MEDIA considers "acceptable".
LEST WE FORGET, the VERY CREEPY cult-like hero worship, the love affair between THE MEDIA and GEORGE W. BUSH, upon his carrier landing (on which he was a passenger, wearing a borrowed flight suit):
Chris MATTHEWS: “Look at this guy! The president there -- look at this guy! We're watching him. He looks like he flew the plane. He looks for real. What is it about the commander in chief role, the hat that he does wear, that makes him -- I mean, he seems like -- he didn't fight in a war, but he looks like he does. The president's performance tonight, redolent of the best of Reagan … an amazing display of leadership tonight. HE WON THE WAR, he was an effective commander. Everybody recognizes that, I believe …
“And that's the president looking very much like … a high-flying jet star. A guy who is a jet pilot. Here's a president who's really nonverbal. He's like Eisenhower. He looks great in a military uniform. He looks great in that cowboy costume he wears when he goes West. I remember him standing at that fence with Colin Powell. Was that the best picture in the 2000 campaign?
“We're proud of our president. Americans love having a guy as president, a guy who has a little swagger, who's physical …Women like a guy who's president. Check it out. The women like this war. I think we like having a hero as our president.”
Ann COULTER: “It's stunning. It's amazing. I think it's huge. I mean, he's landing on a boat at 150 miles per hour. It's tremendous. It's hard to imagine any Democrat being able to do that. It's stunning, and it speaks for itself.”
Pat CADDELL: “It's a quality. It's an innate quality. It's a real quality. And you know, there's a real -- there's a real affection between him and the troops.”
G. Gordon LIDDY: “He's wearing his parachute harness, you know -- it makes the best of his manly characteristic. He has just won every woman's vote in the United States of America. You know, all those women who say size doesn't count -- they're all liars. Check that out.”
Brian WILLIAMS: “He's a youthful guy. He looked terrific and full of energy in a flight suit.”
Jon SCOTT: “When he got here he was absolutely mobbed by the 200 or so crew members … The people in the multicolored jerseys reached out for a handshake, a photo, anything they could get of this president … it was like the Beatles climbed out of that plane … “
David SANGER: “He hopped out of the plane with a helmet tucked under his arm and walked across the flight deck with a swagger.”
Bob SCHIEFFER: “As far as I'm concerned, that was one of the great pictures of all time.”
Joe KLEIN: “Well, that was probably the coolest presidential image since Bill Pullman played the jet fighter pilot in the movie Independence Day. And it just shows you how high a mountain these Democrats are going to have to climb.”
Brit HUME on THE DANGER: “But this was risky business. You know, there's grease and oil on the decks of those aircraft carriers. The wind's blowing. All kinds of stuff could have gone wrong. It didn't, he carried it off.”
Laura INGRAHAM: “Seeing President Bush get out of that plane, carrying his helmet, he is a real man. He stands by his word. That was a very powerful moment.”
---------
And keep in mind, this was not the crowd at a campaign pep-rally, this was THE MEDIA, in all its fawning sycophantic glory, LOVING that W, cult-like and VERY, VERY creepy.
THIS is the crowd that sees fit to criticize and characterize Obama's fans. At long last, HAVE THEY NO SHAME????
WELLLLLL--!!!
Now let's see what White Supremacists consider "acceptable" in the Realkultur department!!!
Great summary, Tex. It's much appreciated. Yep, they were fawning like adolescent dipheads back then. Would love to see a montage of all those comments played on the anniversary of his aircraft stunt.
Ten they could stop saying "the Iraq war" since it officially ended then. Now it's a horrible occupation.
"And keep in mind, this was not the crowd at a campaign pep-rally, this was THE MEDIA, in all its fawning sycophantic glory, LOVING that W, cult-like and VERY, VERY creepy.
THIS is the crowd that sees fit to criticize and characterize Obama's fans. At long last, HAVE THEY NO SHAME????"
The answer to that question, Tex, is obviously not. The corporatist conservative Republican Party controlled news media, and the dis-likes of Republican Bob Schieffer, Republican Chris Matthews, Republican Wolf Blitzer, Republican Joe Klein, etc., as well as GOP-Viacom-CBS, GOP-GE-NBC/MSNBC, GOP-Time, GOP-Disney-ABC, GOP-Fox, etc., all have no shame whatsoever.
Well, I have to admit, I've been guilty in the past for calling some Obama supporters "creepy" and "cult-like." I try not to stereotype all Obama supporters and paint them with the same brush, because folks like Lynn and Pearlene are quite reasonable. But some of the Obama supporters that I associate with in college tend to be batshit crazy. One of them told me that he hopes Obama becomes president because he can teach blacks how to be Americans again. (That comment was so absurd I immediately left without saying anything, for I knew I would explode in my attempt to explain why that comment was extremely offensive to me.) Another one asked me bluntly, "How could you turn your back on your own race? How could you not support someone so positive, uplifting, so eloquent? He's a great role model for Black America! You probably don't like Obama because he's not a thug like those rappers on BET!" It's these type of comments that outrages me more than anything. People tend to project so much into Obama as if he's Jesus Christ reincarnated it's almost hard to examine him as a typical politician.
I go to college here in Illinois, and I didn't vote for him in the primaries; I knew he would win big. But if he becomes the nominee, I have to really deliberate on whether or not I'm going to support him. Besides his neoliberal policies that I don't care for, I'm just a little uncomfortable with the type of "movement" he's creating. I'm not sure if this movement is a positive or a negative.
I'm old enough to remember the Kennedy-Nixon contest. There was a lot of the same adulation for Kennedy...my cousins said he was so "handsome and cool" which was why they wanted him to be the president.
there are just a heck of a lot of people who want someone to worship. At least they are picking a very positive role model in this case.
Good points, Mary. Perhaps I'm a little apprehensive because I see a lot of Bill Clinton '92 in the Obama campaign, and I personally felt that the DLC hampered the Democratic Party for many years. The Clinton presidency with its bipartisanship of rolling over and allowing the Republicans to define their purpose and agenda had detrimental consequences for pushing any progressive legislation through congress. In effect, the Democratic Party lost its identity. Barack Obama speaks about reaching across party lines and working together, however, Republicans are not going to go along with "liberal" policies just for the hell of it.
But I'm going to stop harping on Obama. The last thing I want to do is upset his supporters here, many of whom I have the utmost respect for. If he's the nominee, I'll probably vote for him solely for the Supreme Court.
But I'm going to stop harping on Obama. The last thing I want to do is upset his supporters here, many of whom I have the utmost respect for. If he's the nominee, I'll probably vote for him solely for the Supreme Court.
Sweetie you could NEVER upset this Obama supporter. You have honest concerns and criticisms which I respect. I would be lying if I said I didn't have ANY concerns about Obama, I do, but on my scorecard Hillary has a lot more negatives than Obama. And then there's Bill, but that's a whole different subject.
I'm tepid about Obama at best, I too find his neoliberal freemarket antics to be a bummer. Then again he is meeting with john Edwards today in North Carolina, maybe some of John's populism will rub off. I do find Obama's foreign policy advisers, aka future cabinet members, to be more progressive than his competitor's team. And I'm pretty sure he'll learn that the Republican idea of bipartisanship is nothing less than total capitulation to conservative ideology. Will he learn any lessons from this? I don't know.
Most importantly, I find it encouraging that a Democrat can get so many millions of people excited and involved. This has the added value of pissing off conservatives because it hammers home the fact that America is a progressive majority, it reiterates the fact that liberalism is mainstream.
Preston, whether this grassroots movement ia positive or a negative thing depends on what percent of those people hold the same absurd views you gave examples of. I have also been getting tired of his celebrity treatment, but I want to remain as reasonable and fair-minded as I can.
Finally, I think it sucks how some people pigeon-hold blacks with regard to Obama. If they support the man it's because he's black and nothing else. If they don't support him, it's because they perceive him as too "white", an Uncle Tom, or Bill Cosbyish. Damned if you do, damned if you don't, I guess.
Oh, and if you think his policies are too conservative for you, that just means you're a communist. ;)
I feel what you're saying, Carn, and I really hesitated making that posts because I know there's many Obama supporters here -- many of whom I respect. I still hold some skepticism about Obama, but no doubt, he is inspiring. Even I can't deny feeling a sense of pride seeing him accomplish so much and captivate so many. I guess I'm a little conflicted over him and unsure that the kind of change he’ll bring is a step forward than a step back.
And of course I'm a communist! How can a leftist such as myself find "the most liberal senator" conservative-lite on domestic issues when the always-reliable National Journal says otherwise? The day I'll be satisfied with Obama is the day he campaigns as a true Stalinist -- I won't have it any other way! ;) (Note: there are some who'll probably find my little joke here serious, but hopefully those who know my posts can attest that I'm joking.)
Opinions aren't true or false. If someone believes that Obama's fans adore him in a creepy way, let them think that way. People have different views about the world. If Clinton was called a "bitsh", then this would be a different story, because this is offensive and sexist. I don't find "creepy" offensive, and it's not being directed at a specific person. Wolf referred to "some very passionate supporters".
Chris Matthews, for example, is among those who are creepy Obama supporters.
Chris Matthews is also creepily in love with Mittens Romney and Rudi Julie Annie.I think it's pretty creepy to single out his Obama man-crush considering all of the Republican dream dates he's had.
I think the basis of all of these weird opinions of Obama are mostly the result of the GOP and their media friends being a little stunned. After coddling a douchebag like bush, who even the average American has figured out is a douchebag, the media doesn't know what to make of a candidate who is actually well-liked.
I was driving home an hour or so ago, and had the right wing-nut station on. The host pulled a pretty good trick. He cited the "most liberal" rating of Obama by the Nat'l Journal, at the same time he was criticizing his low voting record (probably referring to the last few months, since he's been running for president), summing up by basically saying the guy never votes, but when he does, it must be left-wing loon to earn that "most liberal" title (which the host accepted without question)
The host teased his zombies, telling them to think of a number(percentage) of votes that Obama missed, and even if they thought of a high number, they would still be shocked. I was home, but stayed in my car to hear the number, and also to hear the name of the radio blabber. I think his name was Kevin James, but he never cited a voting record by Obama, at least within the 5 minutes or so I waited until the commercial break.Not even the record over the past 6 months during the campaign.
Nice trick, at least for the dittohead audience.Kevin James accomplished 3 things;
1. telling his audience that Obama was frighteningly liberal, based on his voting record.
2. telling his audience that Obama seldom voted, implying that his lefty record must be extremely concentrated
3. got them to think of a very high number of missed votes, without even citing any facts related to those numbers, only the power of suggestion.
I know, long story, but illustrative of what 1/2 of the voters in this country are swallowing.That's a pretty cushy job, Republican radio host.Like hunting farm-raised quail a la Cheney.
Jack and Bobby Kennedy were tremendously popular politicians. There were rumors that in the 1964 election, the Repubs were going to expose the dalliances of Jack, but someone "took care" of all that.
And Col., the comment about the media is right on. They were charged with making the petulant GWB a likable guy. Despite all they did, he is still the least popular president in history. Now a real popular guy comes along, and they start spouting talking points, but at the same time wondering how in this mudslinging day and age someone can actually be inspiring...and thereby popular.
Hey Strange One, Che Guevara has been dead for 41 years,
...yet the Cult of Che is still around
you got any more current commie pinko references?
Sure...the Maoist Red Star flags at leftist rallies, the Hammer and Sickle flags at leftist rallies, etc., etc.
Those symbols are as common at left wing rallies as the Swastika is at right wing rallies.
please cite
But I'm the one who needs to cite a source.
You make a blanket statement about the left and I made an equally ridiculous claim about the right.
But I'm the one who needs to cite a source.
Yep...you sure do..because my statement..isn't quite so ridiculous..is it?
Open your eyes Stranger! There are dozens of Nationalist organizations functioning in the United States that regularly use the swastika quite openly at public protests – and there are plenty of pictures to prove my point.
You don’t consider them “right-wing”? If not, then you certainly have no right to lump all left-wingers into the small group of Anti-Israel protesters like you are trying to do by sighting this link.
There are fringe groups....waaayyyy outside the mainstream...that do use these symbols, that's true.
...howvever, they are ostracized, ridiciled, and marginalized by the others on the right..
...not so with the left
No sir, they run the right. They are the right. And they own the republican party of today. You can't find a single communist or illegal alien or whatever other slur you like to pin on the left holding office as a democrat, but we can find plenty on the republican side. David Duke, Tom Delay, Strom Thurmond, you name it, they are racists, nazi's and klansmen, and they were elected by republicans.
Try something else, your latest lie was just blown out of the water.
Very familiar, indeed. Please explain how libel laws apply..
You sure about that?..
You misunderstand..I know, that's shocking...
..what I was doing was to give a friendly warning to avoid doing this in general..what was said about me was completely untrue (which is a familiar tactic when dealing with the left)..and that has potential for libel action...
...OK this is a case of an anonymous commenter telling a lie about another commenter in order to cause harm to that person's reputation.
Defamation in print(libel) is defined as
1. A false and defamatory statement regarding another;
2. Unprivileged publication of the claim to a third party;
3. Rising, in the case of matters of public concern, to at least negligence by the publisher, or worse; and
4. Damages to the subject.
Now suppose the aggrieved's real identity is revealed against his wishes. What happens to the persons who made false claims against him/her? The fact that these lies were put forward under the cloak of a pseudonym is no basis for protection, The internet is considered to be just like any print publication.Case law is loaded with examples.
The reason I brought this up in the first place is that cases like this are currently being adjudicated. People need to be very careful because their actions can and do have consequences.
Does that clear it up?
Oh, I think I understand completely. I understand that that was one of the most asinine arguments I've ever heard. It's funny that you took so much time writing it down. And, before I tear it apart, let me point out how amusingly ironic it was that you started out by calling me stupid followed immediately by criticizing liberals for calling people names.
As to you argument, your first point does not hold up because you would have to prove that the other poster knew who you were when they called your screen persona a name. As for your definition, thanks for including that, but I know what libel is. I also know it is ridiculous to apply it here because you have to prove damages. I would love to see how you explain the damages that ensued because someone who has no idea who you are called you a name in an online conversation. I know you were trying to wow me with your advanced legal knowledge, but that was pathetic. Much like your original threat of a libel suit was pathetic.
And, allow me to point out how your argument is made more silly by the fact that you have been whining about trial lawyers and their frivolous lawsuits in recent FISA threads.
People need to be very careful because their actions can and do have consequences
Ok - I get it - you're really Ari Fleischer. A fear-mongering anti-constitutional authoritarian. Call your lawyers and sue me.
The wild eyed zombies chanting "4 more years"as young people were dying in shitholes in SE Asia and now the Middle East.
If the dead-enders and the 30 percenters aren't creepy, I don't know what is.
Sorry it is hard for some folks to swallow, but there are some of us who find some ( don't need s general arching statement) of Obama's supporters to be acting cult-like. I find the same true of some Ron Paul supporters.
I do appreciate Media Matters bringing this up, even though I'm not a Republican Talking Point, in fact, I want Republicans tried for treason. But I do believe Obama's more fanatical followers are acting in irrational enthusiasm.
what is odd is the vehemence with which some liberals go after the clintons. here is doug thompson on capitolhillblue, calling the clintons "squatters" at the white house for eight years, and saying, like a "cornered animal", hillary has her "claws out". a lot of the comment i see seems to be nothing but attacking the clintons, followed by we need hope and change, hope, change, hope, change...
http://www.capitolhillblue.com/cont/node/4532
one specific thing that the clintons were attacked for was a lawsuit that was filed before the nevada caucus. and the contention of the lawsuit was that the system was unfair in how delegates would be awarded. shock and horror reigned in the land. the clintons were trying to win in the courts what they could not with the voters. and what were the results of the nevada caucuses? hillary won the majority of county delegates 51 to 45 percent, and obama got 13 delegates to her 12. sort of adds a little weight to the contention of the lawsuit, no?
http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/primaries/results/state/#val=NV
Barack Obama could be reading from a cookbook and it would still give me the vapors compared to the eight years in which Bush has slaughtered the English language. At least our next President will be able to string a coherent sentence together.
Barack Obama could be reading from a cookbook and it would still give me the vapors
Cult? What cult?
"...compared to the eight years in which Bush has slaughtered the English language."
That part makes a slight difference in meaning.
Nice job representing your ideology through dishonest trolling. You're winning hearts and minds, really.
Any criticism of either figure is virtually unspoken among the chattering class without being dismissed as "Bush derangement" or "the fringe left", even when Bush's approval ratings are consistently below 30%.
Cult behavior? That's what it looks like. What you're seeing among Obama supporters is enthusiasm at a glimpse of spring after a long cold dark winter.
Malacandra, you just remiinded me of another example related to Reagan. Sean Hannity often mentions his website (or Fox News' site, I'm not sure which it is), and urges people to go to the Reagan section, where one can download old Reagan speeches. He also mentions a section called "What would Reagan Do?", a question that until this was reserved for Jesus.
OK, I found it What would Reagan do? is on this Heritage site.First Google result was for Cafe Press, where WWRD baby clothes and BBQ aprons were available. Talk about yer creepy.
The New "What Would Reagan Do?" adult diaper for the bedwetter who just can't give up the ghost.
Or an oasis after years of wandering through a Bush desert and a Clinton mirage.
I recently listened to an Obama supporter tell me he was going to get us all health care by simply demanding insurance companies cut their rates to where any and everyone could afford them. This plan of his would call for no tax increase and would mean no government involvement in health care, or so she said. She knew all this to be true because he had said many times how he would make health care affordable.
Now why would someone with a brain think this could be done? "because he inspires people!" Bullsh*t.
That Obama supporter is living in a dream world, and I suspect a lot of them are there with here. Kudos to CNN for actually saying something.
The way health care becomes universal is to take away the PROFIT MOTIVE of the greedy pharmaceuticals and insurance companies/HMO's.
That's why the U.S. has the most INEFFICIENT health care system in the industrialized world. And the grossly high profits are funneled right back into the campaign coffers of the politicians so nothing will ever get accomplished because our elected officials are at the bidding of big pharma.
At the core of this 'creepy' media line is fear. Fear of his power. Fear of an activist government. Fear that the status quo will be pummeled. Fear of the movement that an authentic liberal message can inspire. He talks about broad prospertiy, mutual responsibility, effective government and he asks people to get involved. The fact that so many millions of people are enthralled with the tenets of liberalism is reason to be proud and reason to be encouraged at the thought of a better future.
Yeah he has an authentic liberal message and it moves people, even if his policy often falls short of true liberalism, he moves people. In a democracy that's a good thing because we can move him wih our sheer numbers. This is a damn sight better than the sit down and shut up mentality the right wing authoritarians bring to the table.
Be grateful for something.
I couldn't be more pleased that a Democrat has this kind of power.
Outstanding post.
...except for the omission of Democrats calling his speeches fascistic..
Stranger,
Did your favorite Bush speech come at CPAC this year where the same folks who booed McCain on his immigration policy (without noting Bush agreed with it) chanted "4 more years" at Bush or did it include:
"Putting food on your family."
or another to paraphrase: "Terrorists never stop looking for ways to harm this country and neither do we."
"Around the country, gynos are not able to practice their love on women" (another paraphrase).
Yes, now it's all about substance since we're talking about Obama. And when we're talking about Hillary it's all about things such as her laugh and her wave, and other superficial matters. Of course there are inevitable criticisms of anyone who is black or female, or tied to Islam in any way. And they can't be too liberal, of course.
So Dems should be safe from criticism if they nominate a white Christian male who knows policy backwards and forwards, who is a good speaker, is charismatic, and is also a centrist. That should leave no room for Republicans to complain. (*cough*Bill Clinton*cough*)
It just doesn't matter. Dems could nominate Jesus and he'd be dismissed as a socialist hippie. Obama gets mocked for being inspirational, for giving people a feeling of hope by the same people who want Reagan's face on Mount Rushmore because he was so inspirational, because he gave people a feeling of hope. Pot-smoking philanderer Bill Clinton is a disgrace to the nation, but pot-smoking philanderer Newt Gingrich is a great American. The traits that our leaders need or don't need are directly related to whatever favors Republicans. Funny how that trend works.
Actually the problem isn't Obama's rowdy reception from supporters
It's the funereal attitude of Republcans toward their candidates.
I swear in less than a day after Tom Sullivan, a talking head on Fox, compared the speaking styles of Obama to Hitler, someone was sitting on their pc writing the Dallas Morning News to make the same comment as if it were their own.
It was printed in today's Sunday Edition of the Editorials (called Points).
Expect the same in all your local newspapers.
Not surprising that the dis-likes of the right wing corporatist conservative Republican CNN, and CNN's Republicans, Republican Liar Wolf Blitzer and Republican Hate Hag Liar Carol Costello, as well as GOP-Disney-ABC's Republican Liar Jake Tapper are now insulting the people who support Obama as being "cult-like".
These 3, among other right wing Republicans throughout the lying corporatist conservative Republican Party controlled news media, will do anything to make sure that Liar John McCain gets elected.
I don't really consider this mis-information. I am witnessing first-hand some really creepy cult-member-like behavior of SOME Obama supporters. I'm not saying all. I've never seen anything like it, it's very bizarre.
So what. I find your posts creepy too. Does that mean Hillary is Jim Jones?
It's amazing how THE PRESS can brainwash people into thinking what they feel is "cultist" feelings. You people don't even know which way is truly UP! It's a sin and a shame to make people believe that Obama is something he is not. He is a good man with a good vision that so many of us have been longing to hear over these past 20 years or more. He connects to the people, not to the government, and to us, that is GOOD.
Wake up and smell the coffee and see what we, the people, see instead of what your incomprehensive mind can think. Whatever happened to the Woodwards and Bernstein type of reporting? It's been all lost in the mire of the BUSH/CLINTON DYNASTY. You people are told to say whatever they want you to say. I don't believe there is one media expert alive that speaks what he truly feels anymore. You may as well be puppets of the 4TH REICH.
Give us all a break and don't say nothing if you can't be nice. God loves you, too, amazingly!
b2008