The Dulling of Obama’s Luster
In much the way that Charlie Murphy was awed by the aura of Rick James, so too the electorate has seen an angelic aura surrounding Obama . . . at least until recently. I have predicted for many weeks, but neglected to publicly post, that no politician can endure a competitive presidential election with their luster and aura in tact. I no longer consider that to be a prediction but rather a description of Obama’s present reality.
Mini-scandals have compounded and eroded the mystery of Obama. Reverend Wright converted Obama from a person of ambiguous race to a full-fledged African American, which has harmed him with the less progressive elements of moderate voters, especially white moderates. The God and Guns bitter comment converted Obama from an optimistic unifier to an elitist liberal who looks down on the lives of middle America. Ties to Rezko have eroded him too. To be clear, these are the perceptions of the voters, not my own feelings. I think that both sentiments have logical difficulties but in politics logic is rarely vital.
Even Brian, the once faithful servant and worshiper, wrote to me, “Both candidates are over-hyped. Obama is over-hyped b/c people think his above-average qualities (good speaker, etc.) are more important than they are.” Brian also admitted that just as he views McCain as a “normal politician,” so too he views Obama in the same light.
McCain has lost it too. In 2000 he created the template for Obama’s current campaign, but in the eight intervening years he lost his luster from the cruel barrage of speculation and accusation that stabs at every public figure. All great politicians were during their time just another normal politician. George Washington’s military and political abilities were constantly assaulted. John Adams was viciously hated and attacked by Hamilton, Jefferson and others. Controversy swarmed Jefferson during his presidency. Lincoln endured lies and personal attacks.
If Iraq stabilizes and Middle Eastern democracy flourishes, it’s possible that even Bush will be viewed favorably in the future. It’s possible that McCain and Obama will be viewed with luster and glow in the future, but it is impossible for them to be viewed as such now. This impossibility is sad in some sense, we all yearn for a politician capable of fundamentally changing politics. Someone honorable and brilliant and moderate in the right ways and progressive in the right ways and conservative in the remaining ways. Perhaps that person exists, but lacks the political fortitude and pragmatism to survive the political tournament. It is only once our immediate passions have been tempered by the steady logic borne from the passage of time that we view a politician as a Statesman and a Great.
Comment by Hanno on 26 April 2008 at 10:57 am:
That graph makes absolutely no sense. All it does is show week-to-week obama vs clinton which isn’t particularly helpful because the time duration is too short. Hell I’m sure I can find a three week span where Bush’s ratings were completely shitty and claim people love him…of course you made no claims about the graph. Your obsession with multimedia is obnoxious when it’s not relevant. Dude, multimedia is distracting unless it has some relationship to the actual writing. I’m with Tom that most of the best posts have had no multimedia whatsoever.
Comment by Billy Joe Mills on 26 April 2008 at 3:56 pm:
You are welcome to ignore the graph. Avert your eyes, don’t discourage me.
Comment by Brian on 26 April 2008 at 4:32 pm:
I think hanno’s not so much discouraging you from putting up graphs as much as he is criticizing this graph as totally irrelevant given that it spans some random brief period in March. Seriously, what’s up with that?
Comment by Billy Joe Mills on 26 April 2008 at 4:49 pm:
OK guys, the graph really isn’t that big of a deal. I couldn’t find the exact info that I wanted and I wrote the post during class. I’d appreciate criticism of what I write rather than petty shots at the form of my posts. I agree that the graph is only tangentially related to the post, but I thought it was at least interesting and educational enough to burden our virtually unlimited server space with an extra 50kb.
Furthermore, I thought that the last week or so of decline was particularly interesting because it corresponds with a general feeling conveyed by the media and by friends that Obama has lost something, he’s lost that magic he once had and I don’t say that to claim that he has a lack of ability but to demonstrate that the political process is too cruel for anyone to survive with their luster in tact.
Comment by Allan Niemerg on 26 April 2008 at 6:07 pm:
“I don’t believe the Democrats or Republicans are lying to us. I think that every dirty, rotten, lowdown thing they say about each other is true!” A. Ray Lambson. Letter to the Los Angeles Times (1994).
Comment by Billy Joe Mills on 27 April 2008 at 7:55 am:
Also, the graph shows daily polling, which allows you to see how the mini-scandals I discussed affect his popularity. Further, the intertwining popularity numbers show that Obama does not dominate Hillary like he once did, which was during a stretch of a few weeks leading up to the Rev. Wright debacle…hence, he has lost his luster.
I wish we could talk more about the substance of my post, rather than making me defend extremely minor editing decisions.
Comment by Brian on 27 April 2008 at 8:10 am:
I don’t really disagree with the thrust of your post in any fundamental way. I think the graph’s a little misleading is all, and, in honesty, I thought maybe you had just posted the wrong graph without noticing.
I don’t know what you’re referring to in terms of “dominating” Hillary. The best he’s done against her happened AFTER the period of time in the graph you posted (in April, before Pennsylvania), and I still don’t think it was “domination.”
Not a big deal. I just think maybe a graph of his favorability rating or something like that might be a better illustration of what you’re talking about.
Comment by Billy Joe Mills on 27 April 2008 at 8:12 am:
oh for sure…I tried to find a favorability graph but I wasn’t able to.
Comment by Billy Joe Mills on 27 April 2008 at 8:21 am:
i posted a new graph that is up-to-date. the rationale for the other one is that it corresponded with the rev. wright stuff…at least i think it did.
Comment by Shawn on 27 April 2008 at 7:12 pm:
I just have two points.
(1) It was inevitable for Obama to lose his luster. But it’s better for it to come out now than against McCain in the general election. These stories will lose the public’s interests as the months wear on, and a new story will take its place. For all the bloodletting, Hillary staying in the race may actually be good for Obama by exposing his liabilities early, as long as she’s rallies hard in support for him in the general election.
(2) We can argue about whether discussing Bill Ayers, Bittergate, the soundbytes of Rev Wright are relevant issues that reveal something telling about Obama or are just ‘distractions’. But one issue that has yet to vetted is his radical departure from the conventional wisdom of foreign policy engagement. And the person who should be additionally scrutinized, who seems to be influential in shaping Obama’s foreign policy strategy, and who has shied away from the public eye since the ‘monster’ comment is Samantha Power. Her new book ‘Chasing the Flame’ details the life of Sergio Vierio de Mello, a senior UN diplomat whose engagement with terrorist leaders and leaders of repressive regimes had succeeded in mending serious human rights issues. Whether his controversial style is politically infeasible or progressively adaptive to the realities of the 21 century is debatable. But his tactics seem to be similar to the kind of direct engagement Obama is willing to adopt. I’m willing to bet the life and ideas of Sergio through the lens of Ms. Power will be playing a pivotal role in an Obama Administration. And these are the ideas that represent a stark difference from Clinton and McCain, that represent the type of radical ‘change’ Obama will bring to Washington, and whose merits should be what are discussed in the media and around the kitchen table.