Uncategorized

Is the “Cult of Hope” Hurting Obama?

Found this on the ol’ AfroSpear today and thought it was very interesting. It’s a post by D. Yobachi Boswell at BlackPerspective.net entitled “Obamanites Do Barack Candidacy A Big Disservice.”

Here’s a snippet:

It never fails that no matter how many missed opportunities go by Mr. Obama, and no matter how many head scratching mistakes he makes; no matter how big a continued strategy fails (see 10 point loss in Penn), the Obamanites never see one wrong thing that he is doing/has done.

… (H)e’s come up short time and again in a number of areas. It all primarily comes under the heading of not adjusting to the changing winds, i.e. he rest on those positive factors that I’ve highlighted and no matter the circumstance will hardly adjust to meet new developing challenges. …

Obamanites will have none of this talk though. A one to three percent shrinking lead is a massive success to them. Going into June having eeked out a bare minimum win to them is evidence of perfection, though he’s had opportunity to bury his opponent; yet instead has allowed her to define him to the public and raise his negatives going into the general.

They resist any critique of him, including constructive criticism by Obama supporters who haven’t drunk the kool-aid and are not enthralled with the man’s perfection. This is an unfortunate constant in our public discourse, where if certain people are for someone then they refuse to acknowledge any negatives about them. They can’t be for someone and be critical of them at the same time. They find that to somehow be mutually exclusive, rather than nobly honest and constructive.

Boswell makes some interesting points. I’ve jokingly written about some of Obama’s more fervent supporters who have a bit of a Messiah complex over him, but I haven’t looked at how some of the “hear no evil, see no evil” types could be impacting the race.

It concerns me that Obama is having trouble adjusting to the Clintons’ tenacity. He’s the front runner. Mathematically Hillary Clinton cannot win, yet she’s still in it and winning states. The following is an extreme example, but this is almost like when Mike Huckabee was winning states when it was obvious he couldn’t win the nomination. Huckabee was more of a long-shot. Sen. Clinton has actually won many more delegates and states than the Huckster, but shouldn’t she be marginalized by now? Why are we still existing in this limbo where her chances at grasping the nomination is still a possibility?

Where is the coup de grâce, Barack?

Last night on CNN they showed a statistic that said a plurality of Pennsylvanians thought Obama would be the nominee, yet Clinton won the state by almost 10 percent. That means a lot of people voted for her even though they thought the contest was over. What does that say? What is that really about? It’s uncomfortable for people to talk about it, but I’m just going to throw it out there.

Are lower-to-working class whites going to vote for Obama? You know, the less erudite, non-Liberal and not wealthy white voter? The class that is less likely to “hope” and more likely to go “I’m voting for McCain if he’s the nominee?” What is Obama to do about those people as a good portion of the Democratic electorate are them and are impervious to grand displays of superlatives and loquaciousness in the midst of a presidential primary run?

What can Obama do to convince these individuals that he’s for them too and keep them from staying at home or breaking ranks come November?

Standard

11 thoughts on “Is the “Cult of Hope” Hurting Obama?

  1. Anonymous says:

    I don’t think Obama has to convince ALL the people that voted for Clinton in the primary to vote for him in November. Some of them will without any “convincing”. We tend to assume that ALL the Democratic primary voters are voting their ONLY choice as opposed to their FIRST choice.The analysis should be what percentage of Clinton voters (whatever their political affiliation) say they won’t vote for Obama; subtract that from the total Democratic votes cast during the primaries; and, see if that result exceeds the number of votes cast in the Republican primaries.Not a perfect gauge but at this point what is?

  2. dewfish says:

    Granted, it’s seemingly not over yet, but I think he has to stay on his current path. Just like I said in the Wilder post, going negative at this point in the game would do more harm than good. First, Clinton’s better at negative than he is, and it would also look like he is going against his word. And once that happens, all h*ll breaks loose. Republicans will start calling him a flip flopper, a liar, and everything but a son of god. They are trying to do that with Rev. Wright by association, but there just isn’t that much there for them. Another factor that may come into play that is rarely mentioned is that a lot of poor whites in rural areas might actually be tired of republicans being all talk, no action. You always hear about how neglected black people are by democrats, but poor whites are in the exact same position with republicans. Yes, the candidates say all the right things, all with the presumption that “we’re the good, responsible people. when they cut this program or make the private schools the only ones worth attending, we’ll be okay.” I think a lot of poor republicans are slowly figuring out that they can’t “ball” like their rich republican counterparts. The rich republicans don’t care how many programs are cut or how bad public schools or hospitals are. The poor will feel the effects, but it won’t affect the rich at all.

  3. dewfish says:

    I think another thing to consider is that no other black candidate has gotten this far. We are practically in unchartered waters here. I don’t think anyone really “knows” what the next step should be.

  4. dewfish, at least for my part, my piece doesn’t say he should go negative; it doesn’t say specifically what he should. That’s another piece for another day.It address the Obamanites contention that there is no problem and no adjustments should be made; that barely eeking out a win by virtue of having won early but possibly losing 8 out of the last 10 contest is a good ideal, while watching your negatives increasingly rise as you go into the general; and that encouraging some one to ‘rest on their laurels’ is a good strategy.

  5. dewfish says:

    fair enough. I’ve seen overzealous supporters of every candidate, I don’t think its just an Obama thing. I think some of the loonies that happen to support Obama (they would still be loonies regardless of who they supported, just look at the Ron Paul supporters) get more camera time because he’s basically the most popular candidate.

  6. I look at it like they are both two canidates with very similar platforms…and as someone posted earlier, people are choosing their preferance in this race, not their ONLY choice.I think if McCain keeps up this “100 years in Iraq” platform, he’s going to knock himself out right there. Couple that with McCain’s limited economic plan, Obama just might pull this off…

  7. Yobachi: That was a real thought provoking post you wrote. People don’t like to talk about the frenzy around Obama and how it could be clouding some judgment. People need not to ensconce themselves in bubble wrap and go “La la la, can’t hear you” with their fingers in their ears.It’s unseemly.grown: The best thing that can happen for Obama (or Hillary) is that McCain keeps up the war talk and (please Jesus) pulls a Bob Dole and falls of a stage.Really. You can not discount that one nose dive off a stage, even if he’s not hurt (which I hope he wouldn’t hurt himself. Just fall, get back up like Dole did.), it will make people go, “dear fucking Christ! He’s an old ass man! We can’t elect an old ass man!”And down goes Frazier! Down goes Frazier!

  8. [quote]the Obamanites never see one wrong thing that he is doing/has done.[/quote]This is easily explained!To those who have an ARBITRARY set of judgments……their ENEMIES can never do anything that will appease them but their HEROES can do nothing wrong despite their clear failures.Since I have been engaging my fellow brothers and sisters with a different ideological persuasion in various blogs I have promoted the idea of establishing a fixed set of objectives prior to going into the fight and prior to you pulling out the pom poms to support a winner.Absent this we will shift from VOTING FOR OUR INTERESTS (where this can be measured on the streets and in the districts governed by the people who claim to have our interests in mind) over to VOTING FOR THAT WHICH ARE “POPULARLY ASSUMED TO BE OUR INTERESTS – but which cannot be proven anywhere in the real world – particularlly our own communities that they preside over.When POPULARITY trumps EFFECTIVE movement toward our common goals – indeed people will inject “FAITH in sights unseen” to bridge the gap in their understanding.

  9. [quote]Another factor that may come into play that is rarely mentioned is that a lot of poor whites in rural areas might actually be tired of republicans being all talk, no action.[/quote]One day – with adequate prayer to Jesus I hope that Black URBAN people will make the same inspection of the people who RUN OUR COMMUNITIES and do as you ask the White rural folks to do with their leadership.[quote]Yes, the candidates say all the right things, all with the presumption that “we’re the good, responsible people. when they cut this program or make the private schools the only ones worth attending, we’ll be okay.[/quote]Is this the same “THEY” that have made “Public Inner city schools” not worth attending but then BLOCK any attempts to have Black children be given the opportunity to attend a private school?

  10. dewfish says:

    feedback, I hope ALL citizens will make the same inspection of the people who RUN OUR COMMUNITIES and do as I ask the White rural folks to do with their leadership.I’m not sure which “they” you are referring to, since this happens with both political parties.

  11. Black Snob, thanks for the repost. You’re right, people can’t just “ensconce” (lol, who uses that word) themselves in an ideological vaccum. An echo chamber doesn’t allow you to be properly analytical. That’s why I watch Fox news and listen to Rush Limbaugh; you need to know how other people perceive things. A well round view makes for better analysis of the situation.

Leave a Reply