This isn’t exactly a unique observation, but for me its striking how much the race for the presidency this year is all about Barack Obama – for better or worse, for him and all of us.
Take for example the fact that as Senator Obama heads out for his “grand tour” of major European capitals and Middle Eastern hotspots, all three major network anchors will be taking the trip with him. Compare that with how little coverage Mr. McCain’s global adventures have brought him and it proves the point – it’s all about Barack. Like him or not, people are interested in finding out more about him. They want to see how he performs on the world stage. Obama just has that appeal.
Of course the heightened focus Obama receives plays both positively and negatively. Not only is Obama’s globetrotting offer potential benefit but also carries significant risk – the attention Obama receives in general gives him a greater ability to sell his message but also makes any gaffe that much more intense and damaging for him.
And the Obama-bias in coverage touches upon a larger issue about people’s views of him and the nature of the 2008 race. Americans definetly want change. They want it badly. Obama represents it and yet many people are still not quite sold on him. For some its his youth. For others its lack of familiarity. For many its ideology and partisanship, which continue to divide our country despite Obama’s best efforts to transcend the divisions. For a sizeable minority its his race, his name, his background. For a few it may be lingering animosity from the primares. Whatever it is, while Obama has come to embody change in a change-year, the elevated focus he receives can also do him in.
Obama has a movement at his back, but like so many movements before it, there are those who fear the change it could bring or the unfamiliar person at its head. For Obama’s proaction – meet the counter-Obama reaction. Both could become strong dynamics in this race even if Obama himself remains a relatively mellow presence.
For better or worse then – this race is as much about Obama as a person, and a prospective leader as it is about what is happening in the world or America. If enough people are convinced Obama can lead and well-represent America then the race is his. On the other hand, if McCain can raise enough doubts about Obama than he could sneak in despite the stiff political wind in his face. McCain seems an afterthought – and as long as that remains the case people will vote either for or against Obama.
<
p>Does that sound like unbiased coverage to you. Isn’t there some law about having equal access on the airwaves. This election is so being driven by the elite white media liberals who are wetting their drawers with excitement about a black President. Personally I gag every time I see BO or Chris Matthews getting an erection when BO speaks.
<
p>
<
p>Worse.
<
p>
<
p>Please allow all the wonderful BO supporters on this blog to acknowledge some things. We can go along with Geraldine Feraro when she stated that BO is only in this position because he is black. When you write down his background and qualifications with no reference to his race, he is totally lacking the qualifications this office has demanded in the past. Consider the resumes of the people in ran against in the primaries. When he gave the speech at the democratic convention in 2004, he was immediately pronounced winner of the next Democratic nomination for President. When has a white guy with so little experience been given that opportunity? For that matter, when we a white guy “ever” get that chance? That is when the media went to work.
<
p>And with all of his flash, all of his gender/ethnic appeal, all the wonderful orations, the money (which normally the Dems would criticize as buying an election)… how does he stand up against JM… just about even. And that doesn’t count all the people who say they will vote for BO (for fear of not being PC) while they secretly will vote for JM in the both. The debates should settle this one and my money is still on JM.
<
p>Heaven help us if BO fools enough people. Although we survived Carter so I’m sure we would survive BO too.
this comment would work pretty well as satire. Perhaps some marginalia along the order of Colbert’s “Word” might push it over the top….
All those resumes you reference in the primaries. When have any of those folks given a speech like his in 04. The answer is never. No doubt race is part of the Obama phenom. But it cuts both ways – costing as many votes as it gains him. And there are plenty of decent black pols out there who would never be where he is no matter how good a speech they gave.
<
p>No. Obama is special. If people get weak – its not because of his skin tone, its because he does something very few politicians do – he inspires them. He turns folks onto politics not off of it.
<
p>You can deny his appeal all you want. You can attribute it to race and white guilt and all that. But you would of course be wrong. Obama is half-white remember. He crosses over because he is crossed himself. He’s a one of a kind, a once in a generation pol.
<
p>Carter my ass. Who’d Carter beat to win the primaries – Mo Udall. Obama took on the biggest name in Democratic Party politics and pulled it out against all the odds. No one else could have done that.
<
p>Instead of Carter think Lincoln. Think Kennedy. Instead of wishing him the worst because you decided not to jump on the wagon and are desperate to be proved right about him – how bout looking on the bright side. He may fail but he could also be great. Our country needs great after eight years of failure and before that eight years of unfulfilled potential. Stop rooting against him, unless you of course believe in what John McCain believes – then all the power to ya. Otherwise, with or without weak knees its time to get on board.
<
p>Sorry but I’m not buying the Lincoln or Kennedy thing. Anyone who does is just being too simple or wants it too badly. And th stakes in this world at this time are too high for “he could fail…”. The Bush years have been tarnished by this war but please remember his approval ratings before the war and all the good news that was happening.
<
p>I don’t want Obama to win in the worst way, but I will say that if he does win I hope he does the great things he promises. Anyone who begrudges the winner, be it me of Obama or many on this blog site about McCain are being counter productive. After all, this is about our country and not some contest over “your man” winning. So I would hope all of us will jump on the bandwagon of whomever wins… now can all of you agree to that????
– Business background in VC
– Something to do with the olympics in SLC
<
p>Compared to Obama’s
– 4 years as a US Senator
– 7 years as an Illinois state senator
– Community organizer in Chicago
– Editor-in-Chief, Harvard Law Review (see? Executive experience!)
<
p>Look, you may think that Romney’s business background is a better qualification than Obama’s community organizing experience, but not everyone would agree.
<
p>McCain can make the argument that he has more experience than Obama, and he’s correct. He’s older and has served in Government longer. But that experience doesn’t trump the fact that I disagree with him on a whole host of issues, from birth control coverage to foreign policy.
<
p>I just don’t see how Romney fans can argue that Obama “is lacking qualifications.”
First Romney…
Romney graduated from the Cranbrook School in Bloomfield Hills, Michigan in 1965 and earned a perfect score on his SAT.
<
p>Romney attended Brigham Young University, where he graduated as valedictorian, earning his Bachelor of Arts degree summa cum laude in 1971.
<
p>In 1975, Romney graduated from a joint Juris Doctor/Master of Business Administration program coordinated between Harvard Law School and Harvard Business School. He graduated cum laude from the law school and was named a Baker Scholar for graduating in the top five percent of his business school class.
<
p>Romney went to work for the Boston Consulting Group, where he had interned during the summer of 1974.
<
p>From 1978 to 1984, Romney was a vice president of Bain & Company, Inc., another management consulting firm based in Boston.
<
p>In 1984, Romney left Bain & Company to co-found a spin-off private equity investment firm, Bain Capital. During the 14 years he headed the company, Bain Capital’s average annual internal rate of return on realized investments was 113 percent.
<
p>In 1990, Romney was asked to return to Bain & Company, which was facing financial collapse. As CEO, Romney managed an effort to restructure the firm’s employee stock-ownership plan, real-estate deals and bank loans, while increasing fiscal transparency. Within a year, he had led Bain & Company through a highly successful turnaround and returned the firm to profitability without layoffs or partner defections.
<
p>Romney left Bain Capital in 1998 to head the 2002 Salt Lake City Olympic Games Organizing Committee.
<
p>CEO of the 2002 Winter Olympics
<
p>Romney served as president and CEO of the 2002 Olympic Winter Games held in Salt Lake City. In 1999, the event was running $379 million short of its revenue benchmarks. Plans were being made to scale back the games in order to compensate for the fiscal crisis. The Games were also damaged by allegations of bribery involving top officials, including then Salt Lake Olympic Committee (SLOC) President and CEO Frank Joklik. Joklik and SLOC vice president Dave Johnson were forced to resign.
<
p>
<
p>Yes, that “something” was CEO… On February 11, 1999, Romney was hired as the new president and CEO of the Salt Lake Organizing Committee. Romney revamped the organization’s leadership and policies, reduced budgets and boosted fundraising. He also worked to ensure the safety of the Games following the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001 by coordinating a $300 million security budget. Despite the initial fiscal shortfall, the Games ended up clearing a profit of $100 million.
<
p>Romney contributed $1 million to the Olympics, and donated the $825,000 salary he earned as President and CEO to charity.
<
p>Obama…
<
p>- 4 years as a US Senator
<
p>Come-on. He started serving in 2006 and barely served 12 months before he went on tour running for President. During the Primaries he was asked about his time of the Homeland Security committee but he had to admit he hadn’t attended any meetings due to running for President.
<
p>- 7 years as an Illinois state senator
<
p>Wow. 7 years of sitting in the church listening to Rev Wright.
<
p>- Community organizer in Chicago
<
p>This is good too. Why not add in how many times he donated blood to the Red Cross?
<
p>- Editor-in-Chief, Harvard Law Review (see? Executive experience!)
<
p>Anything from High School, maybe worked on the yearbook or the Senior Prom?
Question: Isn’t there some law about having equal access on the airwaves?
<
p>Answer: No. It was rescinded under the Reagan Administration.
When you get to the grown up world, people care more about what you’ve been doing lately and not what you did 20-30 years ago. So McCain was at the bottom of his class… look at his record in the Senate. So he doesn’t use a computer, big deal. I’m sure we could quiz most of the members of the Senate about using an Ipod, memory sticks, a Prius or what the latest liquor rage is… and all of that is irrelavent.
<
p>BTW… Section 315 of the Communications Act , the equal airtime rule
Where have I written about John F. Kennedy and said he was one of my legends? Just where exactly?
GPA matters until the later of one year after graduation or grad school matriculation. (And anyways, it wasn’t fifth from the bottom at UMass, it was Annapolis!)
<
p>Even then, alma mater only matters until the the fifth year after graduation, unless one went to a military academy, in which case until retirement from the military.
<
p>After that, schooling is nearly irrelevant to the real world.
He can’t get it into his head what the Czech Republic is. He had to have Lieberman tell him that Iran would never help Al Qaeda because he was strongly convinced that it would. He tells us that the people to worry about in Iran are those that rile American opinion not those who run it. These three examples all represent things a normally intelligent person would have learned. He was embarrassed about the first. If you or I were embarrassed about getting something like that wrong, we would have remembered. The second two are in the area where he’s touting his extraordinary leadership abilities, but they indicate he doesn’t have a clue.
<
p>And don’t get me started on his inability to master technology.
<
p>So I think GPA, which Google does take seriously in its hiring, may be more predictive than you or I might expect.
Anyone, anyone, anyone who gives a fig about someone’s GPA after that person is over the age of 23 is, by definition, an [expletive]ing [expletive]. Its like a middle aged guy bragging about his SAT scores.
<
p>You want to criticize him for being stupid, then focus on things that happened, say, in the 21st century to make the point.
nominated after a address to the previous convention:
<
p>1. Clinton, Bill (1988)
<
p>2. Reagan, Ronald (1976).
<
p>I’m sure I’m missing a few others.