Safe Mode: On
Obama's Altitude Sickness

WASHINGTON -- The Democrats are in a panic. In a presidential race that is impossible to lose, they are behind. Obama devotees are frantically giving advice. Tom Friedman tells him to "start slamming down some phones." Camille Paglia suggests, "be boring!"

Meanwhile, a posse of Democratic lawyers, mainstream reporters, lefty bloggers and various other Obamaphiles are scouring the vast tundra of Alaska for something, anything, to bring down Sarah Palin: her daughter's pregnancy, her ex-brother-in-law problem, her $60 per diem, and now her religion. (CNN reports -- news flash! -- that she apparently has never spoken in tongues.) Not since Henry II asked if no one would rid him of his turbulent priest, have so many so urgently volunteered for duty.

But Palin is not just a problem for Obama. She is also a symptom of what ails him. Before Palin, Obama was the ultimate celebrity candidate. For no presidential nominee in living memory had the gap between adulation and achievement been so great. Which is why McCain's Paris Hilton ads struck such a nerve. Obama's meteoric rise was based not on issues -- there was not a dime's worth of difference between him and Hillary on issues -- but on narrative, on eloquence, on charisma.

The unease at the Denver convention, the feeling of buyer's remorse, was the Democrats' realization that the arc of Obama's celebrity had peaked -- and had now entered a period of its steepest decline. That Palin could so instantly steal the celebrity spotlight is a reflection of that decline.

It was inevitable. Obama had managed to stay aloft for four full years. But no one can levitate forever.

Five speeches map Obama's trajectory.

Obama burst into celebrityhood with his brilliant and moving 2004 Democratic convention speech (#1). It turned an obscure state senator into a national figure and legitimate presidential candidate.

His next and highest moment (#2) was the night of his Iowa caucus victory when he gave an equally stirring speech of the highest tones that dazzled a national audience just tuning in.

The problem is that Obama began believing in his own magical powers -- the chants, the swoons, the "we are the ones" self-infatuation. Like Ronald Reagan, he was leading a movement, but one entirely driven by personality. Reagan's revolution was rooted in concrete political ideas (supply-side economics, welfare-state deregulation, national strength) that transcended one man. For Obama's movement, the man is the transcendence.

Which gave the Obama campaign a cult-like tinge. With every primary and every repetition of the high-flown, self-referential rhetoric, the campaign's insubstantiality became clear. By the time it was repeated yet again on the night of the last primary (#3), the tropes were tired and flat. To top himself, Obama had to reach. Hence his triumphal declaration that history would note that night, his victory, his ascension, as "the moment when the rise of the oceans began to slow and our planet began to heal."

Clang. But Obama heard only the cheers of the invited crowd. Not yet seeing how the pseudo-messianism was wearing thin, he did Berlin (#4) and finally jumped the shark. That grandiloquent proclamation of universalist puffery popped the bubble. The grandiosity had become bizarre.

From there it was but a short step to Paris Hilton. Finally, the Obama people understood. Which is why the next data point (#5) is so different. Obama's Denver acceptance speech was deliberately pedestrian, State-of-the-Union-ish, programmatic and only briefly (that lovely coda recalling the March on Washington) lyrical.

The problem, however, was that Obama had announced the Invesco Field setting for the speech during the pre-Berlin flush of hubris. They were stuck with the Greek columns, the circus atmosphere, the rock star fireworks farewell -- as opposed to the warmer, traditional, balloon-filled convention-hall hug-a-thon. The incongruity between text and context was apparent. Obama was trying to make himself ordinary -- and serious -- but could hardly remember how.

One star fades, another is born. The very next morning McCain picks Sarah Palin and a new celebrity is launched. And in the celebrity game, novelty is trump. With her narrative, her persona, her charisma carrying the McCain campaign to places it has never been and by all logic has no right to be, she's pulling an Obama.

But her job is easier. She only has to remain airborne for seven more weeks. Obama maintained altitude for an astonishing four years. In politics, as in all games, however, it's the finish that counts.

Source


Click to view image: '225447-CARI_Obama.gif'

Added: Sep-12-2008 
By: grayokc
In:
News
Tags: obama, palin, election, 2008
Marked as: approved
Views: 6383 | Comments: 32 | Votes: 1 | Favorites: 0 | Shared: 0 | Updates: 0 | Times used in channels: 1
You need to be registered in order to add comments! Register HERE
Sort by: Newest first | Oldest first | Highest score first
Liveleak opposes racial slurs - if you do spot comments that fall into this category, please report them for us to review.
  • You forgot "in denial".
    WTF do they expect?
    Obama's platform is nothing but slogans.
    He's come up with no policies he has no plan and no experience. He has nothing but bullsh1t and sleaze tactics.
    Of course Democrats love the taste of bullsh1t, but when your platform is based on it eventually you'll sink.
    And that is precisely what is happening.

    Posted Sep-12-2008 By 

    (6)

  • Comment of user 'roundandround' has been deleted by moderator!
  • huh?

    i see laughter and glee. smugness, elitism, confidence, and arrogance. they'll lose it if they celebrate to early.

    Posted Sep-12-2008 By 

    (1)

  • Comment of user '' has been deleted by moderator!
  • Comment of user 'roundandround' has been deleted by moderator!
  • Yeah, It takes a bad economy, war and a liberal press to get a liberal elected to the White House. LOL! If the Dems don't get into the white house, then you'll have to conclude beyond any doubt that liberalism is nearly dead in America. Lets hope so!

    Posted Sep-12-2008 By 

    (0)

  • You know what, you dumb ass liberal are right...

    you've got nothing to worry about...


    Dummies, don't forget to vote on Nov 5th :o)

    Posted Sep-12-2008 By 

    (0)

  • What would happen if absolutely NOONE voted in the election? I mean.... NOBODY at all. Who would win?

    Posted Sep-12-2008 By 

    (0)

  • Comment of user 'roundandround' has been deleted by moderator!
  • This is authored by FOX news contributor Charles Krauthammer. One of Krauthammer's quotes:

    %u201CHawks favor war on the grounds that Saddam Hussein is reckless, tyrannical and instinctively aggressive, and that if he comes into possession of nuclear weapons in addition to the weapons of mass destruction he already has, he is likely to use them or share them with terrorists. The threat of mass death on a scale never before seen residing in the hands of an unstable madman is intolerable -- and mu More..

    Posted Sep-12-2008 By 

    (-3)

  • It's becoming obvious to me that Americans put party loaylty above the interests of their nation. You'll elect any crook just as long as he's one of your own. The candidates from both parties are terrible, yet listening to you people it's like they're heaven sent.

    Posted Sep-12-2008 By 

    (-4)

    • That is a big problem in our government over here. Its one thing to be loyal to your party. But theres a point when loyalty needs to end because your party just does nothing but a shitty job.

      Posted Sep-12-2008 By 

      (-2)

    • As a registered Republican, now voting against my own ticket. I still tend to agree with you. I've always said if Charles Manson were running as a Republican, in some places he would still win, and those that voted for him would ignore the truth, saying "he was framed".

      Posted Sep-12-2008 By 

      (1)

    • Comment of user 'kievakula' has been deleted by moderator!
    • Correct about hot heads-from both sides-online.

      Posted Sep-12-2008 By 

      (0)

    • You are right on. It's bunk!

      Posted Sep-12-2008 By 

      (0)

  • 'frantic', 'desperate', 'frightened', zzz...

    Posted Sep-12-2008 By 

    (-4)

    • I whole heartedly agree. Your description of the democratic (& liberal) party is right on the money.

      Thumbs up Las :-)

      Posted Sep-12-2008 By 

      (2)

    • LOL...hilarity ensues.

      (denial, then anger, then acceptance)

      Obama is kicking ass.

      Posted Sep-12-2008 By 

      (-2)

    • Not kicking ass since the end of the Primaries. Not at all. However, IMHO he still has about a 50-60 percent chance of victory if the economic numbers continue to be soft.

      Posted Sep-12-2008 By 

      (-1)

    • then he can inherit the gigantic mess Bush and the Republicans left behind

      Posted Sep-12-2008 By 

      (-2)

    • Palin was the biggest boost, she's been a lightning rod and instead of bringing up why we even went to Iraq.

      Hurray the surge is working but it's still 500 billion lost and 4000 dead and it doesn't change the fact that our control of Afghanistan is deteriorating rapidly. Doesn't change the 6% employment rate. That's the thing, Republicans are damn good at characterizing democratic attacks as sick and twisted but Obama being a Manchurian Moslem candidate is right on the money even though Muzzie More..

      Posted Sep-12-2008 By 

      (1)

  • Obama's campaign may not be doing so well tactically... however, 6.1 percent unemployment has a campaigning quality all of its own. Still Obama's race to lose.

    Posted Sep-12-2008 By 

    (-4)

  • Comment of user 'ZenAndTheInfiniteGarden03' has been deleted by moderator!