"There's something about him..." "I can't put my finger on it." "Something's off...

[hisownpetard]

but I don't know what." "There's something that 's not right."

There's something weird about the fact that so many people have posted one or more versions of the above.

I was for Edwards, but I would be happy with either Barack or Hillary as our candidate now.
There were good points about every candidate, and bad points as well - but at least I could name them.
Either I felt that someone was not honest or transparent enough, was not experienced enough, was too angry about
the right things or too zealous about the wrong things. Didn't have a good health plan, wasn't anti-war enough for
my money.

But I don't understand the amorphous criticisms that seem only to be directed at Obama.
I've never seen anyone write that they don't like Hillary but 'can't put their finger on' why.
Or that they wouldn't vote for Edwards because "there's something about him that's just 'off.'"

Nor do I mean to imply that anyone who makes the forementioned claims is racist.

However, to what do you attribute the fact that so many people are expressing these shapeless non-specific demurrals now?
It gives me a queasy feeling.
Why does it both me?
I dunno, not sure. Can't put my finger on it.

[saracat]

1. It is because he never says anything and speaks in platitudes.

Some people get nervous when they notice that.

[SammyWinstonJack]

2. "speaks in platitudes." That is it exactly.

[iconocrastic]

18. He's not speaking in platitudes. He's putting forward an idealism

People who are only logical and have no intuition (can't read intent) will label this as platitudinous.

But he proved last night that there is substance and careful thought behind his proposals.

[halobeam]

36. The editor from The Nation was on WSJ this morning.

When asked his opinion about the differences between the r and d debates, he said one of the staggering differences is that the republicans debate idealisms, noting the dems don't do that. Seems some Dems disagree with that statement. Obama became better last night at debating policy in more depth. Still has a way to go in order to satisfy some Dems it seems.

[rodeodance]

71. Yes, he does have a long way to go--2016 would maybe do it.

[hisownpetard]

74. I could go for that. Actually, I hope that the results of the next national election will

drive the Republicans back to the Stone Age.

May they not show their faces for rest of the century!!

[rodeodance]

82. chuckle---that would a LLLong time!!!!

[rudy23]

90. You're right. This is a rift where one side has trouble understanding the other.

I think there's a definite intuitive/logical rift on DU, and everywhere else, probably.

[LiberalHeart]

134. I agree. I even see a rift between among those who support just Obama...

Some know why they support him, but others can't "put their finger on why" they do. For that latter group, I'd guess that it's because they're caught up in a fantasy -- projecting onto Obama what they want him to be, but knowing in their hearts it's all their own invention and not what he truly is.

So many times, the best anyone's been able to tell me about his big attraction is that he's "inspiring."

[Maribelle]

141. I believe the fact he speaks in platitudes is evidenced by his infamous speech of 10-26-2002.

When one analyzes that speech in depth, and compares it to the numerous speeches on Iraq more than two weeks before Obama gave his, the platitudes jump off the pages.

One cannot deny that Obama merely took main points others had already written and threw fluff around them.

This pull quote is an excellent example:

I know that an invasion of Iraq without a clear rationale and without strong international support will only fan the flames of the Middle East, and encourage the worst, rather than best, impulses of the Arab world, and strengthen the recruitment arm of al-Qaeda.

He says "I know", yet nowhere in the speech does he say how he knows. And since the speech he has never been challenged on this, and has never once stated the methodology behind the "I know". His use of the "I know" therefor is a platitude, without any sort of foundation.

"Without strong international support" is also a platitude, not hardly an original idea or concept. In fact, the following pull quote could show that Obama might have pulled the idea from Hillary's floor speech on the IWR vote. And there are others.

If we were to attack Iraq now, alone or with few allies, it would set a precedent that could come back to haunt us.

But those are just two platitudes. I would bet there are more than a dozen perhaps two in that small speech.

And that is my main issue with Obama. His great oratory skills that supposedly inspire others are for the most part empty words.

Unlike those that support him are crying this morning, that some Democrats are trying to deamonize Obama as the Governor of MO cried, some Democrats are just trying to wade though the empty words attempting to find some substance.

I would never ever deny Democrats their goose bumps, for when Obama tickles their ears. But to elect a president of the United States based on goose bumps is off-putting to those that are looking at the severe problems of hard working Americans.

This is not the time for platitudes. Words need to have concrete foundations. Obama supporters need to think about this. If your going to vote for this man as president based on his one Iraq speech, ask him how he knew. That should be easy, no? If you're going to hold up his speech to condemn the actions of Hillary, you need to know which part of the speech Obama cloned from Hillary's, or others.

We owe ourselves and this nation deserve so much more than platitudes.

[hisownpetard]

143. "Infamous speech"? Where he accurately laid out everything that would happen if we made the mistake

of voting "FOR" the Iraq war, as Hillary did??? Do you have a dictionary handy?

It's one thing to criticize a candidate because of a perceived failing; but to criticize Obama for his speech *against*
the war (?!!?) and not criticize his opponent who actually voted * for * the war is too ridiculous to even discuss.

Talk about 'empty words'! Your post is full of them.

[Avalux]

5. "Never says anything" - do you realize how ridiculous that sounds?

Obviously you didn't watch the debate last night or you would.

[MADem]

8. That's the ONLY time he gets specific--at debates.

If you watch CSPAN, and look at the candidate appearances, as I do, you will see that Clinton gives a very specific talk, and follows up with Q and A that can last two hours. It's VERY detailed, and she answers questions FULLY. Edwards was the same way.

Obama gives dramatic, high faluting speeches, they're GREAT oratory, but they're general as all hell-- he talks AT the audience, not to them, and he swoops in on a wave of music and cheering, and swoops out on a wave of music and cheering. He's NOT specific in his campaign appearances. He doesn't "do" nitty gritty like Clinton does.

[Avalux]

16. Then read some of what he's written.

You're focusing too much on style. If you know the candidate, then it's more of a personal preference. I personally don't want to hear Hillary drone on and on. I can read.

[saracat]

22. I did.Both books. Style over substance Sorry. Just my opinion.

[rodeodance]

67. I read till about half of Audacity--had to put it down.

[elixir]

103. It's almost like he's wrapped up in language but cannot articulate ideas or policies.

He looked visibly distressed last night when he had to articulate his health care plan. If he's not comfortable doing this, how's he going to survive a repug debate? I'm not certain he can. Now, whether you like it or not, Hillary can.

[rodeodance]

108. Well if you constantly looking for the right phases, the stress if bound ot come through. Hill

has it down. she has been around the block as they say for a long long time.

[allalone]

129. oh, so you mean she has experience?

[hisownpetard]

142. That doesn't necessarily mean she has experience - just that her answers are well-rehearsed.

[hisownpetard]

114. I thought he seemed completely comfortable with the format and the questions.

Funny how two people can watch the same thing and come to different conclusions,
but I guess that's what makes life the world go
round.

[ginnyinWI]

127. I saw the same debate you did.

I think he was in his element. He had time to discuss an issue in depth. That's something you cannot and should not do in a stump speech. If anybody wants details, I invite them to Obama's website where there are pages and pages of details.

http://www.barackobama.com/index.php

Go to the Issues tab and select any one of a long list of pdf files on any of today's current issues.

What I liked about Obama in that debate is that he actually respected the questions and answered them. Hillary side-stepped more than a few of them and filibustered with many words that didn't apply. She didn't respect the audience which included TV viewers like me.

[MADem]

34. No, I am not focusing on "style." If I were focusing on "style" I'd be entranced by Obama.

I focus on

the words

that come out

of the candidates'

MOUTHS!!

What they SAY....not how it looks.

Obama is the one with style--Clinton is the antithesis of style. Her appearances are in plain rooms without fancy lighting. What she has is real looking crowds of regular people, as opposed to "cheering sections."

Glad you can read. That's helpful. I prefer to see a candidate responding to "current events" questions, being forced to think on her feet, rather than hear a shopworn stump speech surrounded by stage-managed cheering and music. But that's me.

[Avalux]

39. So Hillary can sit with the common people and gab. Big deal.

Doesn't mean she will be a good president.

[MADem]

42. Doesn't mean she won't be, either.

Have a nice day.

[rodeodance]

69. "entranced by Obama"---that is the problem--it's a trance.

[nonconformist]

46. No, I'd argue that we're NOT focusing on style, which is why we have issues with Obama.

And I have read The Audacity of Hope and his polices on his website - which is how I know he's NOT a progressive.

[rodeodance]

65. I read his new article today in Foreign Affairs--lots of hitting on the right political

notes.

[Sapphocrat]

133. You know what makes me "queasy" about that?

I bet you can guess: It's that we're expected to invest our future in "faith" -- logic be damned. What does that remind you of?

Give me nitty-gritty any day. There's too much at stake to put stock in feel-good faith revivals.

[MADem]

151. I agree with your perspective. The stakes are too high. NT

[opihimoimoi]

9. Me too.....at this point, If Obama gets the Nom Nod, I intend to vote/support him

but, there is something about the dude...

The Pubs have ammo on him...more so than Hillary...so them Pubs actually want him to get the Nod....that is their only chance to win the White House...by Boating our Nom......

Already Odinga comes to mind...the Media has been thus far silent but the Bloggers are going nuts over this guy...so why the Media silence which is deafening?

[saracat]

11. Who is Odinga?

[opihimoimoi]

15. google raila odinga....Obama met him 2 years ago....both of the Lu Tribe

and so is Dick Cheney...1/60th African...also of the Lu Tribe...per bloggers.

[saracat]

23. Googled it.I don't get the significance.Is it because of the Raila coup involvement?

[opihimoimoi]

37. Seems like Raila lost an election...he is contesting with brutality

in which hundreds have died...

Kenya is undergoing something akin to Rhowanda...lotsa bloodshed.

One blogger asks why Obama has not yet condemned/protested/mentioned this ongoing genocide...

I wish I knew cause it matters....

[Mojambo]

19. Yep. That's the hold up for me.

I see plenty of sizzle. I'm still waiting for some steak.

[alcibiades_mystery]

Without specific analysis of one of his supposedly platitudinous speeches

The charge that he speaks in platitudes is itself a platitude.

It certainly functions like one on these boards. All anybody has to say is "No substance," or "speaks in platitudes," or "nothing flowery rhetoric," and you'll get 25 Hillary supporters parroting the same line, evidence for the initial claim be damned. That's a platitude, pure and simple. It's hilarious.

For evidence, all you need to do is examine the responses in this thread. Over and over again the charge is made. No specific evidence is needed. Parrots parroting. No substance, they squawk. Platitude, they squawk. Nothing there, they squawk. Parrots.

So, support your claim. Post an entire Obama speech and show us how it is merely a group of platitudes. Don't give me your "general impression," now. That would be without substance. Do the actual work and stop speaking in platitudes!

I doubt any Hillary supporters will take up this challenge. It's easier to squawk like a parrot than it is to form a coherent, substantial argument. But, if any is so brave and diligent, you'd need to provide two speeches, one by Obama and one by Hillary, and demonstrate how one is substantial, while the other platitudinous. Take the same KIND OF speech. No mixing and matching. Prove your point! Or, be a parrot.

[rodeodance]

77. I challenge you to do a :"specific analysis of one of his supposedly platitudinous speeches"

[alcibiades_mystery]

112. I'm not making the charge, so why should I do it?

This is really your dodge? Do the fucking analysis. Prove your point. Or, squawk away, parrot head. I don't care.

[sandnsea]

25. It's on

Get specific. What do you want that he hasn't addressed.

[rucky]

57. THAT'S a platitude. n/t

[kirby]

3. Cuz he is black?

He appears so 'off' because the normal media display of blacks are gangster thugs with their pants hanging off their asses. To be presented with contrary evidence to the norm is giving pause and causing people to try to reconcile what they see with their own eyes versus what the media has shown as a stereotype for so long.

[LisaM]

4. If you haven't seen people say that about Hillary....

You're not reading the same posts I have been. I've heard, "she's just not likeable". "I don't like her", etc., etc., etc. (I know - it's happening in my own house).

Not like McCain, where we can affirmatively say he's batshit crazy.

[hisownpetard]

7. That's not analagous. Saying someone "isn't likeable" is giving a concrete reason.

It's not the same as saying, "I don't know why."

[LisaM]

12. I don't find it concrete at all

Saying, "I don't like her BECAUSE _____________" would be concrete, just assigning the trait of unlikeability is pretty vague.

[rodeodance]

64. If you had someone say-I do not like you--it would be concrete (to me at least), then

I might as why (if i cared about that person)

[LisaM]

96. There's people who don't like me, but I don't know why

I don't mean because of specific actions. There is just one certain type of person that thinks I'm stuck up and don't like me. I learned to accept it after a while (after trying unsuccessfully to make those people like me). But to be fair, there are certain types of people I don't like either, and really not for a particular reason, they just rub me the wrong way.

[hisownpetard]

24. Saying someone is not likeable is giving a reason. Saying, "There's something about her I don't

like, but I don't know what it is..." is not.

[sandnsea]

27. Because she's rude, haughty, calculating,

thinks lying about people is "fun", there's a host of reasons people don't like Hillary if they were forced to sit down and think about them and list them.

[MADem]

6. Oh don't OVER ANALYZE it. People who don't like Hillary--those "Hillary Haters" know why

they don't like her--they spit out those right-wing created themes, and finish up with "....and her IWR vote!"

They've MEMORIZED the bullshit. If they "can't put their finger" on it, they HAVE NO FINGERS.

Obama is less known. The amorphous thing is probably not the "race card" that is perhaps your unspoken inference, but the INEXPERIENCE card. It's harder to put one's finger on "inexperience."

And if you think these expressions are NEW, or RECENT or 'just now' you've been living in a cave.

Check the archives.

[hisownpetard]

14. "Unspoken inference?" Your post is a good example of why it's better to read than to skim.

From the OP:

Nor do I mean to imply that anyone who makes the forementioned claims is racist.

Couldn't have made that any clearer, right?
If inexperience is the factor, I think it's pretty easy to point to it.
I'm not taking issue with the fact that some people prefer other candidates to Obama.
I'm trying to find out the specifics, instead of the general non-descript feelings.

[MADem]

75. That's why I put that "perhaps" word in there.

You don't mean to imply it, but "perhaps" it's an unspoken inference, nonetheless. There are plenty of people who fidget with that race card who do not self-identify as "racists."

And that is no reflection on you or your views. It's what came across to me when I read your post, to include that statement.

[OneGrassRoot]

10. I don't have that opinion of which you speak here, but perhaps ...

others do because he is a relatively unknown quantity. It's been a tremendous, though sudden (in the scheme of things) media glare. Takes people a while to form an opinion or a gut feel about someone.

[iconocrastic]

13. There's nothing about Barack that bothers me

He's a decent man who's genuinely interested in public service and willing to put his ideas forward in a reasonable and articulate and non-confrontational manner.

Maybe that's hard for some people to understand.

[DemCam]

121. no...its not that simple...or he wouldn't be where he is in such a short time

[alcibiades_mystery]

17. Very keen analysis...yes, everything turns fuzzy

I think you're right that there's something very sinister at the root of such claims, though I by no means wish to suggest that it is consciously done. It certainly calls for significant reflection.

Perhaps more shocking is that the same people with their "queasy" feelings consistently shout about Obama's supposed lack of substance. Given this weird contradiction on the very surface of their posts, I doubt the needed reflection will be coming any time soon.

[hisownpetard]

21. Probably the people who will seek to reflect on it are not the ones who need to.

Thanks for your assessment of the post.
Appreciate it.

[KennedyGuy]

20. Its because theres nothing there

Its like eating a jar of marshmallow fluff and realizing you're still hungry because it is mostly empty air.

[saracat]

26. And I am bothered by the Resko involvement and that he didn't tell the truth to ABC. That was not

a good thing. $170,000 contributed by parties you are aware of being under Federal investigation be taken by a Presidential Campign is nothing to dismiss.And one couldn't NOT 'know' or find it when scrubbing.Some was from Resko's WIFE.The fact the money was NOT returned until now is troubling as he specifically stated Resko had not contributed to this campign and that all money had been returned. Oops.

[hisownpetard]

29. I appreciate your concern over this very specific issue. (But perhaps for another thread?)

Thanks.:hi:

[saracat]

35. Well, it is another reason people just can't put their finger on "why" it doesn't ring "true " with ...

Sorry . not a threadjack attempt!

[hisownpetard]

38. Then, the specific reason might be "I don't think he's being honest," no?

:hi:

[saracat]

41. Thanks! That is right!

[saracat]

44. I have another one.The Umms and ahs of his normal speaking style lead one to think he doesn't know

what he is talking about.He is not fluid.At least not without a memorized speech and a teleprompter!

[hisownpetard]

49. I look at it a little differently.

I don't like it when a candidate has a well-rehearsed, well-edited and memorized answer to every possible question asked,
where the phrasing and intonation never vary.
I much prefer to have someone "umm' and 'ah' a second while they form an honest response to each question, as it's asked.

Ya know?

[sandnsea]

50. Oh My God The HORROR

Are you fucking kidding me???

You hate him because you think he stole Edwards' rightful nomination and that's all there is to it.

[saracat]

59. Nope.I don't care for either of them but that wasn't the question. I actually coach

speech and it is an observation I am making about WHY , that some feel comfortable about barck. Barack probably had a stutter as a child and compenstates for it.I have had students who struggled with this.It does tend to make one lok less informed.Whatever.

[hisownpetard]

60. Interesting observation.

Thx.

[hisownpetard]

45. ok - that's all I'm trying to do. Get specific. Thanks!

:headbang:

[sandnsea]

31. He did tell the truth

He said that nobody knew about Rezko back when the development work took place, and most of the donations took place.

He admitted he shouldn't have done the land deal when Rezko was starting to be investigated.

Kerry had some money connected to Hsu that had to be returned after that scandal broke too.

This Rezko thing has been beat to death in Illinois and there's nothing there.

Next.

[saracat]

40. Not going to threadjack this sandnsea, but those were NOT the donations to which I am referring.

[sandnsea]

48. They had already given $44,000 to charity

When more info came out about Rezko's schemes, they gave away even more. Every candidate has had to do the same thing at some point in time. There is no there in this story. It's a phony excuse to hate the man and you are the biggest offender on this board. It's totally outlandish with no basis for it.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/politics/chi-rezko_both_20jan20,0,7876083.story

[saracat]

61. NYTimes disagrees as does ABC. Whatever.

I am not going to go into link competition We disagree and this isn't what this thread it about.

[rodeodance]

73. Why did the Chicago Trib advice him to come clean?--the paper

that endorsed him and have been following this issue? just wondering.

[sandnsea]

78. It sells newspapers??? n/t

[rodeodance]

81. maybe so, but doubt it. just my opine.

[Marie26]

28. Beats me

And I've tried to figure it out.

[hisownpetard]

30. !!!

:shrug:

[Marie26]

32. Not helpful, I know.

But I've thought that there's something off, something not quite right, & it's not just the speeches. But then I feel bad about even expressing that out loud because there's not enough to point to to explain it or justify it. I don't think it's racism - I would love to vote for Charlie Rangel, Maxine Waters, John Conyers, etc. But Obama just really rubs me the wrong way & I've given up trying to understand why. Call it women's intuition. :)

[hisownpetard]

33. No, I appreciate it.

:hi:

[rodeodance]

76. yes, its a gut feeling for me. and when I don't follow it --i generally find

myself going upstream without a paddle.

womens intuition, gut feeling--yeah.

[Writer]

43. Please don't call me out.

Thanks!

~Writer~

[hisownpetard]

51. ??

[Writer]

54. Dude, don't act coy!

You pulled words, almost verbatim, from that post of mine the other day. That really, really long one.

[hisownpetard]

58. It wasn't just your OP. There are many, many people all over the boards who have

expressed the same or similar feelings.

I am undecided at this point, since I wanted Kucinich and then Edwards.
So what I'm trying to do is get more specific reasons for why people feel the way they do.

I think everyone responding to this thread has understood that.

[Writer]

66. Your OP was clear, certainly, but it came with a price.

I can tell you that my "shapeless non-specific demurrals" result from a concern that I had about the unsubstantive appeal of Obama. I know he has a platform, and Hillary does as well; however, I still can't see much difference between the two of them policy-wise. Perhaps a bit on their health care reform packages (mandates v. no mandates); however, the first question from last night's debate was spot-on: there really isn't much daylight between the two. Although they spelled out their differences, I think the differences are still rather subtle. So I have to look at other aspects of these two candidates to determine who I prefer (especially since I head to the Colorado caucuses on Feb. 5th).

I'm bothered by the idea that we are voting on image and perception. I truly believe that with Obama. I believe he's merely a symbol that represents the IDEA of change, but he doesn't necessarily GUARANTEE change given his lack of experience (ability to push forth legislation, political connections, etc.). I am now more sure after last night's debate that Hillary is stronger in this area.

His behavior is also a bother to me, because of how taken some are with his glossy image while, at the same time, he exposed little bits of less than sportsmanlike behavior. He certainly has approached this race as a 0-sum game... until last night, of course, when I think he demonstrated a bit more graciousness and respect.

So, indeed, this is all a very instinct-driven, gut-rendering process. My husband and I spoke last night and agreed that we may end up splitting our support between Clinton and Obama. That's what happens when George Bush has driven the bar so incredibly low that seeing two people who can think, talk, and act presidential is itself the definition of "change" in 2008.

~Writer~

[hisownpetard]

72. I agree.

[rodeodance]

47. This Obama ‘mania’/jumping on the bandwagon reminds me of pre-war run-up. So many

Jumped on the YES bandwagon. We had respected newspapers such as nytimes
Running articles/opine pieces saying yes yes yes. It’s the right thing to do. Too
Many people in authority positions saying yes yes yes. This mania has the same aura.

And look what we got.
His record and speeches need to be critiqued.

Yes, I have posted this previously and will do again.

[demo dutch]

56. Thanks Rodeo, You wonder whats behind it all!

[rodeodance]

63. I don't wonder anymore, just

know it is dangerous for our nation.

[demo dutch]

85. In France the law requires the press to give equal coverage to each candidate.

They have national primaries which are not decided by the National parties but by the voter! and they have a multi party system. Reform of the political system is desperately needed and needs to be taken out of the hands of the party and the media. Reform should not just be limited to campaign finance reform, reform need to happen across the board. Maybe it'll change when a third party finally comes into play, and maybe there should be a 4th party, there are groups of people on the other side, I dare say, that feel unrepresented as well. A real democracy by all for all! However it is unlikely to ever happen here because both parties like it this way and they would never vote for any changes.

[rodeodance]

87. I also like their short primary--2 months is it? this long long primary I do not

think does anyone good in the long run--except maybe the media.

[demo dutch]

107. Yes 2 months, too short for us, since we're bigger, but even so we'll have to settle for our

BILLION dollar president thanks to the media and the archaic voting schedules.

[saracat]

62. Wow! Exactly spot on!

[BlackVelvet04]

100. Yep.....n/t

[readmoreoften]

109. He's a centrist demagogue posing as a progressive messiah. Clinton's just a centrist.

The manic, submissive, hysterical mindset of his followers is frightening. Anyone who makes people so delusional and nutty and doesn't try to inject some reality into the equation is power hungry. I can tell you specifically why I don't like Obama:

(1) He's a haughty, nasty scold. No one is good enough for him. All the progressives of the past need to be "abandoned" for something "new." Never mind that the "boomers" stopped a war. Never mind that Black activists were inspirations to African Americans, women, and the gay rights movement. He talks smack about Gore. Talks smack about Kerry. There's a nasty undercurrent to him. Think of all the nasty things that HILLARY Clinton has said about other Democrats. (I can't think of any off the top of my head.) Think of all the nasty things John Edwards said about other Democrats (You'll come up real empty on that one.) But Obama is still the "good" guy somehow.

2) He's not a flip-flopper, he's duplicitous. Example: having a platform of LGBT rights, but then sending dog-whistle messages to the Black (and white) Christian movement through the tactical use of anti-gay ministers and performers to win SC. Example: running as if he's an anti-war candidate then admitting he didn't know if he'd've voted for the IWR, stating in 2004 that his position on the Iraq war was the same as Bush's position. Example: criticizing Clinton for votes he didn't even bother to fight for or register his position on (not to mention his 'present votes' and absenteeism in general. If I criticized you for voting for Bush but I didn't bother to vote at all because I had better things to do is that acceptable leadership? No. It's also obnoxious, haughty, and scolding (see 1). Example: running as if he is anti-war then giving a speech about expanding the military and using it to expand protect "vital assets" abroad to the Council on Foreign Relations (search his website for the speech.)

Good God, do I need to continue? Ok: lowering the composite IQ of Americans with empty political rhetoric, manipulating voter desperation.

[krabigirl]

126. I agree with you 100%. My husband and I were just talking about this.

[iris5426]

135. thats it exactly...i never made that comparison before, but that is precisely it! nt

[nonconformist]

52. Because something IS off.

I'm sorry, but that's just how I see it. I know I'm not alone.

He DOES speak in platitudes, as mentioned above. Much of his rhetoric is feel-good and lacking in substance. I don't think he's a progressive and I don't like how he's treated the GLBT community. He sets off all kinds of radars with me. The Obamanation cult-like following he has confuses me, and makes me even more uneasy.

You asked, I told.

[hisownpetard]

55. Thank you for responding. Those are very specific reasons, some of which I definitely agree with.

The McClurkin issue bothers me a great deal.

[ErnestoG]

53. Hillary pulls in the most haters of any candidate.

And that should scare the fuck out of you, come the GE.

[More Than A Feeling]

68. The weirdness is his lack of expressed anger and pain, anger and pain that we feel.

Obama comes across as unnatural because we've all been horrified repeatedly over the past seven years to the point where it may be that some feel like if they had a chance to get up and talk to crowds of thousands, they'd just start raging about the multitude of outrages committed by the Bush clan. Edwards embodied that outrage, and Hillary sometimes does as well (and she gets hammered for it, because she's a woman, and because she's Hillary Clinton). Obama rarely does, and that seems unbelievable, because how could anyone who claims to love America, and care about its people, not be ready to scream in frustration at this point?

If Obama feels as we do, and wants to express it as a normal human would, he can't. He has to keep it bottled up inside, or he'll fall victim to the "angry black man" stereotype. So its perfectly excusable, but if you aren't thinking that way, it can come off as naive, or detached, or insincere. In other words, it can be perceived as feel-good fluff without substance. The substance we are looking for isn't really policies, because of course he has policies. The substance we want to see in Obama is our own anger and pain over what has happened to America reflected in him. These past couple of debates, he's started to let it out a little, like when he hits McCain and Romney. He looks and sounds good while doing it, and it's really helped me, personally, to warm up to him.

[calmblueocean]

83. I think you hit it on the nose.

Nearly all of Obama's applause lines are positive. They involve people from different classes, races, and even parties coming together to make America better. Progressives are NOT used to hearing positivity coming from their leadership. They are used to hearing the squalls of impotent rage.

What's so crazy to me is that some people have begun to *need* that rage, to feed on it and even hunger for it. And Obama doesn't play that game. So many will criticize him for it, saying that he "speaks in platitudes" or some such nonsense. All the anti-Bush screaming we've heard for the past 8 years is just as platitudinous, if not more so.

I keep hoping that the hardcore Democrats who've learned to subsist on rage will open their eyes and see how Obama really does offer to transform our political message into something that the entire country can get behind, and not just the activist class. Personally, I think if we don't nominate him, we are blowing a major opportunity, but you know... it wouldn't be the first time we've done that!

[More Than A Feeling]

97. You make a good point: anger, pain, and wounds that haven't healed,

are probably not the best way to govern. On the other hand, we've all been burned by happy talk about country and government because so often its been the wool that is pulled over our eyes, to blind us from the truth, from the very beginning of elementary school. Maybe Obama is different, maybe he isn't, but the hesitation to buy into what so often has been a prelude to lies and betrayal is quite understandable, don't you think?

[allalone]

130. that's why mccain would be another disaster in the WH

so much unresolved rage and pain

[hisownpetard]

146. I think it's natural for people to feel jaded when it comes to politics. After all, look

at what we've all been through.

However, I'd hope that we're not so cynical that we can't allow ourselves to recognize something real when it does
come along.

[Nickster]

70. Easy, people have had a lot more time to get to know Edwards and Clinton. They've had time to

formalize their feelings. Obama on the other hand is a relatively new politician on the block. People need to see more and hear more before they can crystalize their thoughts.

[hisownpetard]

80. After months and months of reading and following up and comparing, like most

people on DU, I sometimes forget that the rest of the 'normal' world has gone about their daily business
without paying much attention to political matters, as such, and are only now addressing the issue.

So maybe that is a factor, as you said.

[Nickster]

84. Yeah, you have to remember that most people aren't political geeks like us.

[cd3dem]

79. chanting reminds us of mind-control.... yes we can... yes we can...

rather than focusing on real issues... we are being brainwashed! they have been drinking kool-aid!

Obama has little or no real experience to be president.... and no one wants to admit it!

[hisownpetard]

86. I have to admit, that "Yes, we can" thing really rubs me the wrong way.

I want to voter for a presidential candidate, not "The Little Engine that Could."

[cd3dem]

91. good one!

[hisownpetard]

98. Thanks. And welcome to DU.

[ErnestoG]

92. yeah its so...yucky and POSITIVE and stuff.....

[hisownpetard]

99. It's ok to have as his message, but I don't like the way the audience is programmed to respond

each and every time. It's just something that strikes me as hokey.

[ErnestoG]

137. Programmed? What, they have wires attached to their limbs?

[hisownpetard]

147. Is that the only kind of programming you know of?

[Indenturedebtor]

102. Look guys

FDR and JFK had similar messages. Positivity is a Leadership quality. If you bother to listen to ENTIRE speeches that he gives he usually starts out by jacking the crowd up and setting the tone with generalities and platitudes. But he always delivers the meat of the speech in the middle with explicit policy statements, and then wraps it up on a high note.

That my friends is the sort of approach that can get people behind him. He sells his policies in first an emotional, then intellectual, then emotional way.

Most of the country is not even aware of where the problems they're experiencing are coming from. You think that they're going to respond well to an angry firebrand? I was an Edwards supporter and look how well that went over.

But for fucks sake he has spelled out more than Clinton. And as progressives you should appreciate that he has said he won't have Lobbyists as a part of his government, whereas Clinton has said that they are a vital part of government.

Clinton has talked about transparency, and Obama has spelled out the how.

Clinton has talked about drawing down in Iraq, and until she was forced to last night hadn't spelled out how quickly she would do so.. even then she spat out a vague response. Obama has stated from day one what he would do.

Clinton only recently stated how she would fund her healthcare program. Obama has for months said how.

And on and on and on.

So I really don't understand where this idea that he's all style without substance comes from. I loved John for his anger, honesty, and graciousness. But I also love Obama for his honesty and graciousness.

Do yourself a favor... next time Obama speaks listen to the WHOLE speech. He always starts out vague and draws you into the wonk.

Clinton spends half her air time talking about what she's done in the past not what she'll do in the future.

[hisownpetard]

104. I listen to his whole speech, and every speech he gives. He's a brilliant orator

and has the ability to levitate an entire stadium full of people. Or, at least, their souls.

But I don't like the shouted reprise that people are supposed to answer.
Hey, I'm allowed to not like that, am I not?

[More Than A Feeling]

105. I hate special requests normally, but I have to ask what you thought of

my comments above, about Obama's lack of righteous anger? Thanks for your time!

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=4336004&mesg_id=4337176

[hisownpetard]

113. Actually, I thought it was an interesting take. Seems like John Edwards perceived that as a problem

from what I've read.

I actually want someone to take Bush by the lapels and flatten him against the wall.
No one is prepared to do that, much to my chagrin.

I don't want to "make nice." I want them to all be shackled and marched off to Gitmo.

So - yeah - I can see the point of your post. Well put, too!

[smoogatz]

117. "Yes we can" is Bob the Builder.

We have a three-year-old. I know about these things.

[allalone]

131. chanting reminds me of Rome and Germany

and 60's concerts.

[ErnestoG]

138. And every antiwar protest that has ever happened.

[Control-Z]

88. Because,

when people get honest and put their finger on what it is that bothers them about Obama, no matter what it is, facts or just opinion, flames fly. Just sayin'.

[allalone]

132. no kidding, I've been bloodied many a time

but unbowed because I have just as much right to my opinion as any of the rest of you.

[femrap]

89. He's vague...

and I thought we already did that 'Hope' thing in 1992 with Bill Clinton. After the incident about Reagan, I began to see a very calculating man. Especially at the debate, when he got to say...'but I didn't say they were good ideas.'

I don't trust him. I get the feeling that people believe he is progressive just because he's black. And I believe he uses that to his advantage while at the same time taking Big Corporate $$$. It's a lack of trust...that's the funny feeling I had at first and it has only grown. He's just a bit too slick.

[BlackVelvet04]

93. For me, it's a lot of things....

He sounds more like a preacher than a politician to me. His body language gives off an air of superiority. I think he's either extremely naive or just saying what he thinks people want to hear. His attitude comes across to me as condescending. People were all in love with him from one friggin' speech and had no idea what he stood for. I hate personality cults.

[boston bean]

94. Do you want an honest opinion, that you won't bash.

[hisownpetard]

101. WHo did I "bash"?

[ChiciB1]

95. Haven't Read All The Posts Here... Just Remembered A JohnLocke Thread From

last night! Don't know how many read it, didn't see too many replies! But it is VERY interesting and SAYS a LOT!!!

Edited on Fri Feb-01-08 12:49 AM by JohnLocke
The Edwards Effect
By Paul Krugman--The New York Times
February 1, 2008
----
So John Edwards has dropped out of the race for the presidency. By normal political standards, his campaign fell short.

But Mr. Edwards, far more than is usual in modern politics, ran a campaign based on ideas. And even as his personal quest for the White House faltered, his ideas triumphed: both candidates left standing are, to a large extent, running on the platform Mr. Edwards built.

To understand the extent of the Edwards effect, you have to think about what might have been.

At the beginning of 2007, it seemed likely that the Democratic nominee would run a cautious campaign, without strong, distinctive policy ideas. That, after all, is what John Kerry did in 2004.

If 2008 is different, it will be largely thanks to Mr. Edwards. He made a habit of introducing bold policy proposals — and they were met with such enthusiasm among Democrats that his rivals were more or less forced to follow suit.

It's hard, in particular, to overstate the importance of the Edwards health care plan, introduced in February.

Before the Edwards plan was unveiled, advocates of universal health care had difficulty getting traction, in part because they were divided over how to get there. Some advocated a single-payer system — a k a Medicare for all — but this was dismissed as politically infeasible. Some advocated reform based on private insurers, but single-payer advocates, aware of the vast inefficiency of the private insurance system, recoiled at the prospect.

With no consensus about how to pursue health reform, and vivid memories of the failure of 1993-1994, Democratic politicians avoided the subject, treating universal care as a vague dream for the distant future.

But the Edwards plan squared the circle, giving people the choice of staying with private insurers, while also giving everyone the option of buying into government-offered, Medicare-type plans — a form of public-private competition that Mr. Edwards made clear might lead to a single-payer system over time. And he also broke the taboo against calling for tax increases to pay for reform.
(...)
Unfortunately for Mr. Edwards, the willingness of his rivals to emulate his policy proposals made it hard for him to differentiate himself as a candidate; meanwhile, those rivals had far larger financial resources and received vastly more media attention. Even The Times’s own public editor chided the paper for giving Mr. Edwards so little coverage.

And so Mr. Edwards won the arguments but not the political war.
(...)
One thing is clear, however: whichever candidate does get the nomination, his or her chance of victory will rest largely on the ideas Mr. Edwards brought to the campaign.

Personal appeal won’t do the job: history shows that Republicans are very good at demonizing their opponents as individuals. Mrs. Clinton has already received the full treatment, while Mr. Obama hasn’t — yet. But if he gets the nod, watch how quickly conservative pundits who have praised him discover that he has deep character flaws.

If Democrats manage to get the focus on their substantive differences with the Republicans, however, polls on the issues suggest that they’ll have a big advantage. And they’ll have Mr. Edwards to thank.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/01/opinion/01krugman.htm...

[Shadoobie]

106. My wife says things like this as well.

She supports Hillary because to her, I think, Obama is more of an unknown.

When I hear her or others say things like this, it reminds me of when people talk about *. As in "Why do people like this guy?", "He may sound good but will he really do?" After the past 8 years of *'s words and seeing his actions, I think some people just want someone to be honest and specific.

This is why I supported Edwards. I am trying to support Hillary because of her stance on children's issues but her War votes really weigh her down.

Greg

[unc70]

110. I had those thoughts, spent several weeks exploring, and posting what I discovered

Some of it about me, more of it about Obama.

Between Iowa and NH, several of us had long discussions examining his speeches, policies, debates, and books. My journal has some of this with links to some more. Most of these dicussions were before everything erupted into gender and race and emotions - raw, real, and manipulated.

I still find Obama unsettling, maybe because I resent his hijacking language to obscure his positions. Or maybe it's his charming smile after turning the shiv ("Who me?"). Or maybe it's his attempts to be the heir to Camelot. while denying his actions (following campaign intros by Ted Sorensen saying exactly that, beginning 18 months ago). Or maybe it's because I seem to know more about and have closer connections to the civil rights movement that he does and don't like being lectured to. Or maybe I have just seen too much of this "type thing" in politics and business over the last 50 years or so.

I am not happy looking at our "choices" but when forced in the GE I will vote against the Republican candidate.

If you really want specifics, check out threads referenced in my journal.

[hisownpetard]

115. Not sure I understand what you mean by "hijacking language to obscure his positions."

Could you please explain a bit?

[unc70]

120. A variety of things. Let me give a couple of examples

At the general level, the Obama speeches (whoever the writers) are carefully crafted to evoke famous speeches of our past. While many pundits and posters see these as inspiring, transformational, the Second Coming, I have found them to be relatively pedestrian. Maybe I am just old and cynical, but I find most of Obama's speeches to be little more than well-delivered valedictory addresses by a bright high-school senior.

His speeches are very well delivered. Well, at least well-delivered. His "bobble head" motion alternating between tele-prompters is really annoying to me. In that way, he is very Reagan-esque.

In a lot of the generalities, I have the same emotional response to Obama that I have when I hear the music of the 60's being used to market things that no activist from the 60's would ever buy. I avoid throwing things at the TV, but I feel a complete lack of respect for my generation and our efforts and achievements -- not just "our" but "my" accomplishments.

When he first announced over a year ago, Obama told Baby Boomers to get over ourselves and stop fighting about all those issues that have consumed us since the 60's. As one who has been there doing my small part for nearly 50 years, I wonder who this pissant sanctimonious AH is who lectures me on race relations, gender issues, and all those issues that we brought to the forefront in the 60's and are forced to defend over and over again forty years later. And adding insult to injury, Obama casts us as the problem, as the ones who keep fighting rather than finding unity, as the target of his campaign as the example of what is wrong, what caused the excesses of the sixties!

What sent me over the edge was Obama using the words and phrases of Jesse Helms, some channeled through Reagan, when attacked us, those Baby Boomers who were the core of the Dem/Liberal/Progressive movement since the 60's.

Now down to a specific example of Obama obscuring his real position using lofty language. Look at Obama's position on the war. Yes, he made that speech (actually similar to speeches made my most of the Senators who voted for the IWR), but he has done absolutely nothing since then to earn any accolades. He (like Clinton), makes it appear that he will remove all troops immediately. When pinned down, Obama modifies his definite position to allow for continuing operations by "special ops" and others for "anti-terrorism". Obama apparently defines "combat troops" not to include groups like Berets, Seals, Gators, Halos, or any of the other special ops forces. Even Clinton is more honest.

The worst thing I realized about Obama is that his behavior seems that of a sociopath on many occasions. (I am much-to-familiar with this behavior in my own family, and yes I am a professional in this area although this is not quite a professionally assessment.) When you look at the stark reality of Obama's and his father, he seems the stereotypical progeny of a charming, alcoholic womanizing father.

As I have said elsewhere with somewhat less emotion, I am not happy to have arrived at this position. I preferred Edwards, but wanted to be positive about our other candidates. I am really frustrated at where I am now.

[Silver Gaia]

140. Yes. Well said, unc70.

[Deja Q]

111. So it's got nuttin' to do with eatin' too much broccoli, I hope?

:silly:

[hisownpetard]

116. Nah. You're good to go.

[smoogatz]

118. It's racism.

I'm kind of shocked at how rampant it is here: all the "Obama's arrogant" and "why does Obama sound so black" threads have been especially disturbing. When you join a progressive discussion group you kind of assume that the majority will be more highly evolved than the average bear when it comes to matters of race. I have to say, with some regret, that that appears not to be the case here at DU.

[Bread and Circus]

119. Obama is left handed. Left handed people see and describe the world

in a way that is slightly different than right handed people. They talk different. Their tautologies are different.

What interesting, many of the world's most visionary thinkers are left handed.

It's my own pet theory fwiw/

[robbedvoter]

122. Arrogance. Contempt for voters. That "ME, ME, ME!" Kerry also had.

[hisownpetard]

123. Contempt for voters? This doesn't jibe at all with the huge number of people he's moved to become

involved in the political process. On what do you base that?

[rug]

124. It's his big ears.

[hisownpetard]

125. Finally - a concise yet entirely specific theory, expressed in 4 words.

Many thanks for your thoughtful and well-written contribution.:hi:

[allalone]

128. you can't pin him down on issues

we heard the pie in the sky stuff before.
he is like ectoplasm. you can't grab hold of it.

[ErnestoG]

139. Like you can't pin Hillary down on an apology for her stupid war vote.

[hisownpetard]

145. It would have been much smarter for her to just admit that it was wrong, way back when.

People would have accepted it and moved on.
But her strategy of talking around it and trying to mitigate it has made it the 800-lb. elephant in the room.
It's made every talking head on TV and radio want to be the one who gets her to say it.
It's become a thorn in her side, all because she didn't want anyone to be able to say, "She admitted it was wrong."

This mindset is absolutely Rovian. Bush holds the blue ribbon in that contest.
Her insistence on not admitting it makes me doubt that she should be the nominee.

[cooolandrew]

136. It's clearly a fear campaign on the radio too. Be afraid be afraid because Obama is going to win HRC

[maximusveritas]

144. Exactly. I've noticed this too. Sometimes they'll say he has no substance

but of course, they provide no substance of their own to counteract the facts that his plans are just as detailed as Hillary's.

[unc70]

150. Obama's plans are not as detailed as Edwards, often not as detailed as Clinton

Even more disturbing are when his plans gloss over critical details which are not addressed; if one points this out, one is then accused of being for the status quo, or of being a racist, or of not understanding how transformational he is. I suppose it is possible for a Harvard legacy to be transformational.

I'm not particularly happy with Clinton either. Too often she wants to have a commission, or to develop a plan, or to study some issue.

[Unbowed]

148. When people have a feeling they can't put their finger on, it is obviously based on something

subconscious.

If people are making a subconscious and amorphous criticism of Barack Obama, it is probably because he threatens the status-quo in some way, shape or form.

It might not be as clearly defined or as one-dimensional as the factor of his race. I think there are a number of people who resist that which is different and are not comfortable with any change perceived as radical. A woman president represents change, but Hillary Clinton does not represent a radical distancing from that which we know and have become comfortable with. Obama talks about a sweeping change in the way we look at things and at the way we govern ourselves. That can make some people uneasy. It can also inspire others. It all depends on a person's outlook whether you see the dawning of a new age or a course into uncharted territory.

[hisownpetard]

149. Interesting POV. Thanks!

:hi:

[BlackVelvet04]

152. It's all a sham.....

his supporters don't believe in bipartisanship and unity, they believe Obama can just glibly talk republicans into doing things his way, and if not they will be ignored.

He's a fake. The supporters are fake.

[hisownpetard]

153. "His" supporters don't believe in bi-partisanship? And, umm, you do?

:shrug:

[BlackVelvet04]

154. I'm not PRETENDING to. n/t