I don't talk politics with my daughter but so often, but it came up kind of organically a week or so ago. She's an Obama supporter (of course...) and she has her rational reasons for it, but she recognizes the charisma thing has had its impact. She says the case is more of the same with the potential for getting worse vs. getting rid of the Bushisms with the "potential for something awesome" to happen.
Me, I don't do charisma so I've been able to assess things as good and the bad, as strategic master strokes and rank, amateurish errors in his campaign. It's not easy for a politician to actually impress me.
Drawing forth this reaction impresses me.
Dobson's judgment was based on Obama's keynote address at a "Call to Renewal" conference on June 28, 2006. In fact, this speech was impressive in many respects. As an evangelical and conservative who has deep concerns about Obama's policies and political philosophy, I nonetheless welcome such a statement by a leading Democrat.
...Obama was doing what people like Dobson have long urged: making the public square more hospitable for people of faith and calling for a halt to their demonization. Obama made his case in ways I found to be respectful and authentic.
It seems Obama has identified constituencies he deals well with irrespective of how they traditionally align by party, and is picking them off one by one. This can work because as a coalition, a political party isn't a primary identity factor for most folks.
And I notice though he's adjusted in practical political ways, like opting out of the public financing system, he hasn't self-contradicted as regards identity politics yet. He hasn't pleased everyone...
Watching, I find myself hoping he doesn't have the maximum possible impact. I've seen cultural leaders become political figures...the idea of a generic political figure becoming a cultural leader does not really appeal to me. I guess my way of recognizing my daughter's "something awesome."
But the possibility that he can get folks looking in the right direction is increasing. That would be quite awesome enough for me.
Delicious
Digg
Reddit
Newsvine
Furl
Google
Yahoo
Interesting that you mention
Interesting that you mention his outreach to religious voters. As someone who is starting to get involved with the campaign directly, I have taken it upon myself to read his book The Audacity of Hope. The chapter which impressed me the most and the one I thought most original was the chapter on faith. He does not seek to pander to religious voters but sincerely expresses his conviction that the secular humanism of people like his mother who distrusted organized religion can find a fertile home among those who adhere to a religious faith and vice versa. Additionally, he argues that it was the predominant secularism of mainstream cultural institutions at mid-century which allowed the religious right to fill a spiritual void and bend the practice of Christian religion to their own ends.
Dobson's problem is that
Dobson's problem is that Obama has the vernacular nailed. If you go through the trouble to do that, you're either very good or very bad...and since he disagrees with Obama on the details, Obama can't be very good.
You make a good point, P6. I
You make a good point, P6. I had thought Dobson's problem was just his ego and fundamentalism. I never actually considered he had reasonable logic undergirding his stupidity.
By the by, did you do a thread on Ralph Nader? I was interested in what users here had to say.
I had thought Dobson's
The two aren't mutually exclusive, you know.
As for Nader, I never posted about him, and you're the first to ask this year. I think that says a lot about how seriously we take him. Nader is a publicity stunt at this point.
No, they aren't, are
No, they aren't, are they?
And that's what I figured about Nader as well.