February 1, 2008

THE FUNNY THING IS...:

Can the Democrats Afford an Obama Movement? (Peter Ross Range, 2/01/08, Der Spiegel)

[A]lthough Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama are ideologically close -- on the economy, healthcare, and even on national defense -- their campaigns are based on starkly different approaches. Clinton's campaign is about the common grind of daily life, and the grim reality of international threats. Barack Obama's is about self-perception and international image. One is propelled by a political machine, the other by an emotional movement. The question for Obama is: Can the movement beat the machine?

Obama has been under attack for the lack of substance behind his rhetoric. His campaign is based almost exclusively on "hope" and "change" and he has sometimes come across more as a cheerleader than as a presidential candidate. Still, boosted by his resounding victory in South Carolina, Obama has pushed even higher into the stratosphere of non-specific campaigning. With his increasingly perfect pitch as an orator, he is creating a gauzy sense of mission and vision that has enormous appeal to some Democrats. The ringing endorsement this week of Senator Ted Kennedy, the liberal lion of American politics, gave Obama's campaign the added sheen of the Camelot legend.

To Americans old enough to remember President John F. Kennedy (who died 44 years ago), and to members of the educated elite who envision a utopian America, Kennedy's anointment raises the Obama phenomenon above politics to the level of salvation. For them, in the end, it's all about identity.


...Ms Clinton is running the male campaign, Senator Obama the female. Though, it being the female party, she had to cry to make herself palatable.

Posted by Orrin Judd at February 1, 2008 12:01 AM
Comments

Name a Kennedy accomplishment. Anyone?

Posted by: ic at February 1, 2008 12:03 PM
« DID ANYONE REALLY THINK...: | Main | HAVE YOU THANKED THE GANG LEADER TODAY? (via Mike Daley) »