I was writing the other piece yesterday and added the note about Obama entering from a magical Greek temple at Invesco field. As soon as I posted, I was overcome with this bizarre desire to laugh.
Somewhere out there in some part of this American polity, someone is going to be wowed by all the staging. Just like they were wowed by Obama's Berlin speech to 20,000 Germans somewhere near the Brandenbug Gates. I just don't know who they are or where they live, but they must exist.
Obama's entire campaign has been so staged that the real Obama, if there is one, is completely hidden. If we look closely at his pictures, he's always photographed looking off into the distance with great import, or studiously contemplating with his hands folded almost in prayer or surrounded by a halo.
Several poses have mirrored other famous politicians like JFK and MLK. To the point, in fact, that it is almost like he watched hours and hours of films of these famous men just to get it right. Much like how an actor would study pictures, watch movies and listen to any audio that they can mimic in order to play the part of this or that historical person. His speeches most definitely copy those two notable orators along with Reagan and one or two Evangelical preachers.
What about that video where the "reporters" are videoing Obama in the classic "Captain Morgan" stance, leg raised, elbow resting on leg? They were oohing and ahhhing not 10 ft away from him in really loud voices. Even on an airplane, they weren't really that quiet and Obama just kept standing there like a bad parody of rock star or a model for Brooks Brothers "casual man". Did he know? Oh, yes, I believe so and he gave them the pose for a nice long time while they held up their camera phones above the plane seats. That says something about the ego more than some other instances that have been presented.
Now he's going to come out of a Greek temple facade (how appropriate is that word? Facade?) to give his vaunted speech. Some people are comparing it to Bush's stage in 2004. There are a few problems with this comparison. First, Obama's campaign has gone the mind blowing distance of renting the Denver Bronco's Invesco Stadium (Mile High...tell me that doesn't say something in itself). They expect about 80,000 to attend. Like the Greek Temple that is at least twice as large as the Bush stage, the stadium selection along with its nom de guer "Mile High" is invested with symbolic meaning. Added to the Berlin speech, the "Obama - President" embroidered head rest on his special seat in the jet, the Obama Presidential Seal with Latin words (that 70% of America probably interpreted as saying something about oppossums until somebody finally got on TV and explained what it meant...no, that doesn't imply the stupidity of the polity, that implies the elitist "I went to Harvard" and midwesterners are "bitter", "clinging to their bibles and guns" ego), bare chested photos of Obama running out of the surf like David Hasselhof on Bay Watch, interviews with overwrought reporters in the gym (instead of a tour of Landstuhl Military Hospital) and, last, but not least, the multitudes of pictures and posters with Obama's head surrounded by rays of light or a halo...
The list is long, but it all plays into putting Obama on a pedestal: bigger, better, more intelligent. The question is whether this is how Obama sees himself or how his supporters see him? Or, both. No politician would consent to so much over the top without having bought into personally.
Throw in Obama's somewhat vaccuous rhetoric without much substantial or substantiated policies and you get a made for Hollywood story complete with actors who can say their memorized lines on cue, but hardly sound or act in real life like the parts they play in movies.
That may actually represent voters fears with Obama. Who is he in real life? With all that staging, once the campaign is over and the votes are counted, what are they going to get in the White House? Don't think that voters don't see through much of that staged facade. At least, those who are not wondering around in a daze brought on by the historical precedence of the first black man to take the Democrat nomination for President or inebriated by his grandiose speeches about change, hope and, well, nothing, really.
The rest of the voters still live in the real world. With all those big backdrops, stage cues, scripted moments and striking poses, one can be forgiven if one wonders if this is one big movie set. But, who's directing? Someone with a taste for overt and grandiose symbolism.
Those moments were during the primary season. Just wait for the big campaign the next sixty days. What's next? A speech about the greatness of America at Mount Rushmore? MLK at the Lincoln memorial? The Grand Canyon? Kerry tried that and it went down like a box of rocks.
If it is anything like the primary season or bigger, there will be a great number of people who will be wondering when this epic clunker will be over.
Somewhere out there in some part of this American polity, someone is going to be wowed by all the staging. Just like they were wowed by Obama's Berlin speech to 20,000 Germans somewhere near the Brandenbug Gates. I just don't know who they are or where they live, but they must exist.
Obama's entire campaign has been so staged that the real Obama, if there is one, is completely hidden. If we look closely at his pictures, he's always photographed looking off into the distance with great import, or studiously contemplating with his hands folded almost in prayer or surrounded by a halo.
Several poses have mirrored other famous politicians like JFK and MLK. To the point, in fact, that it is almost like he watched hours and hours of films of these famous men just to get it right. Much like how an actor would study pictures, watch movies and listen to any audio that they can mimic in order to play the part of this or that historical person. His speeches most definitely copy those two notable orators along with Reagan and one or two Evangelical preachers.
What about that video where the "reporters" are videoing Obama in the classic "Captain Morgan" stance, leg raised, elbow resting on leg? They were oohing and ahhhing not 10 ft away from him in really loud voices. Even on an airplane, they weren't really that quiet and Obama just kept standing there like a bad parody of rock star or a model for Brooks Brothers "casual man". Did he know? Oh, yes, I believe so and he gave them the pose for a nice long time while they held up their camera phones above the plane seats. That says something about the ego more than some other instances that have been presented.
Now he's going to come out of a Greek temple facade (how appropriate is that word? Facade?) to give his vaunted speech. Some people are comparing it to Bush's stage in 2004. There are a few problems with this comparison. First, Obama's campaign has gone the mind blowing distance of renting the Denver Bronco's Invesco Stadium (Mile High...tell me that doesn't say something in itself). They expect about 80,000 to attend. Like the Greek Temple that is at least twice as large as the Bush stage, the stadium selection along with its nom de guer "Mile High" is invested with symbolic meaning. Added to the Berlin speech, the "Obama - President" embroidered head rest on his special seat in the jet, the Obama Presidential Seal with Latin words (that 70% of America probably interpreted as saying something about oppossums until somebody finally got on TV and explained what it meant...no, that doesn't imply the stupidity of the polity, that implies the elitist "I went to Harvard" and midwesterners are "bitter", "clinging to their bibles and guns" ego), bare chested photos of Obama running out of the surf like David Hasselhof on Bay Watch, interviews with overwrought reporters in the gym (instead of a tour of Landstuhl Military Hospital) and, last, but not least, the multitudes of pictures and posters with Obama's head surrounded by rays of light or a halo...
The list is long, but it all plays into putting Obama on a pedestal: bigger, better, more intelligent. The question is whether this is how Obama sees himself or how his supporters see him? Or, both. No politician would consent to so much over the top without having bought into personally.
Throw in Obama's somewhat vaccuous rhetoric without much substantial or substantiated policies and you get a made for Hollywood story complete with actors who can say their memorized lines on cue, but hardly sound or act in real life like the parts they play in movies.
That may actually represent voters fears with Obama. Who is he in real life? With all that staging, once the campaign is over and the votes are counted, what are they going to get in the White House? Don't think that voters don't see through much of that staged facade. At least, those who are not wondering around in a daze brought on by the historical precedence of the first black man to take the Democrat nomination for President or inebriated by his grandiose speeches about change, hope and, well, nothing, really.
The rest of the voters still live in the real world. With all those big backdrops, stage cues, scripted moments and striking poses, one can be forgiven if one wonders if this is one big movie set. But, who's directing? Someone with a taste for overt and grandiose symbolism.
Those moments were during the primary season. Just wait for the big campaign the next sixty days. What's next? A speech about the greatness of America at Mount Rushmore? MLK at the Lincoln memorial? The Grand Canyon? Kerry tried that and it went down like a box of rocks.
If it is anything like the primary season or bigger, there will be a great number of people who will be wondering when this epic clunker will be over.
Yes, where in the world would the Dems have gotten the idea for "Greek columns?" It's not as if the Repubs are so ostentatious.Oh, wait. They are.
Well, it's not as if Greek-Roman architecture is at all common within US cities at federal buildings, government buildings, and what-not. Oh, wait. It is.
Well, this sounds great in theory: "I vote for the candidate, not the party".
However, it's not very realistic - IMHO. Whomever you vote for IS aligned with a party, is obligated to a great extent to that party for continued financial support, and will most likely only be able to pass legislation and secure Cabinet, judiciary, and other bureaucratic positions if he or she has the support of others in that party.
Because each of the 2 national parties has to aggregate, assimilate, and articulate a wide variety of issues and positions in order to be viable on the national level, none of us will be completely happy with all of the policy positions or objectives of either party. There will always be specific issues on which we will disagree with each party. Unless you're a totally extreme ideologue on either side.
However, and fortunately, most of us find ourselves somewhere in the middle ...... either a little to the right or a little to the left of the political center. Very few of us will find ourselves situated exactly in "the middle" - on the fence. Thus, most of us align ourselves with whichever national party represents most of our core values and interests.
Which is also a good thing. Although we may have swings from side to side periodically, the political pendulum remains stable around the center, and we usually avoid the really extreme pulls that other systems - especially in Europe - experience.
But it's really naive to think you can just "vote for the candidate" without considering the influence that that candidate's party will have on his or her administration.
Kat,
I'm not so sure it's Oliver Stone but rather Leni Riefenstahl. Head over to YouTube and check out the opening of "Triumph of the Will". Big columned stage. Outdoor arena. Charismatic speaker. Bright shining faces swooning at the message. Choreographed celebration(s). Yup.... looks like we have a winner! :) Sigh...
So Oliver Stone it is!
Leni Riefenstahl, Josef Goebbels, Sergei Eisenstein et al are pikers in comparison to today's media professionals who make their living moulding and shaping consumer behavior.
You know we don't know who is orchestrating Obama's campaign or what we're going to get out of an Obama presidency. Of course, I am not implying anything about Obama by this discussion. My only point is that when you are voting based on a carefully constructed facade, you simply do not know what you will get.
Jason's comment got caught in the spam filter - so y'all should go back upstream and give it a read.
As opposed to the nothing but greek columns and the Obamassiah at Mile High Stadium.
Invoking Lincoln's Memorial and MLK?
Please, Jason, Obama's ploys are so obvious.
That's the tendency of voters to <b>say</b> they're voting for the black candidate while actually not doing so.
Which will, of course, add to the cries that the election was 'stolen'. (sigh)
Hey John, just been waiting for a post in which I can add value to or politely rebut some myth-making. I'm going to ignore the claims that Obama's working on a cult of personality, since Kat's determined not to look at his website, look at his position papers, or address the many, many military advisors working on the Obama campaign. The convention is a showpiece. The RNC will be all flash and smoke as well, so let's stop pretending that the DNC is some kind of freak event.
I'm still counting on winning that Missouri steak dinner from Kat when President Obama takes the oath of office in January. But let's see how the Grand Old Party - not so grand, but certainly old - does next week.
2. Obama attended a black nationalist and black separationist church for 20 years, listening to the racist hate spewed by Rev. Jeremiah Wright.
3. Michelle and other liberals are finally proud of America now that a black man - who is really half white - has been officially nominated as a presidential candidate for a major American political party.
4. Some voters will vote for Obama purely based on the fact that he's "black".
5. Some voters will not vote for Obama purely based on the fact that he's "black".
6. If Obama is not elected, some will believe that America is too racist and not ready to elect a black president.
Despite all this, we're assured by all the pundits, the media, and other political activists that this campaign is not about race.
Yes, yes, I know, evil republicans did it even though its a democrat run congress spending government money out the wazoo.
Oh, and I did discuss the energy plan and global warming. And John hit the abortion target straight in the middle. Where were you?
I'll tell you why your accusations about his policies don't matter because it isn't just the Convention that is all flash and show. His entire campaign has been flash and show. That is why his policies don't mean a damn thing. He hasn't made them a campaign issue, so why should I carry his water for him?
Let's face it, he hasn't made policies a central point because, for Obama, they are the losing end of this campaign. What is he going to do? Repeat Hillary's giant 2004 faux pas and tell people that he's going to raise the taxes on everybody "for the greater good?" If he talks about war or any other national defense issue he's going to get hammered. Not just for lack of experience, but because he was wrong, wrong, wrong about the surge and his Afghanistan policy sounds like half baked left overs from the Baker-Hamilton fiasco that called for splitting Iraq in three parts.
Energy? Gees, its not going to get cheaper anytime soon and I think we should raise the price to pay for some other "unproven" alternate energy programs so we can pretend to do something about it?
That's a real winner. Of course he's showing the flash and facade. He won't win on his platform.
but, hey, when the thrill stops running up and down your leg on Nov 4, you can buy me at 10lb lobster flown in fresh from the coast as McCain accepts Obama's concession speach.
Kat,
That wouldn't be good, you want a couple of smaller ones. I don't eat lobster myself, but I know the big old ones are no good. Ask for several 1 pound chicken lobsters.
http://shop.legalseafoods.com/index.cfm/pk/product/ac/list/cid/10010
Maybe Cricket can suggest something yummy to along with it.
It is actually a tenet upon which I have based my interactions with others.
I have always thought that MLK was right, and still do. That is why I could not possibly vote for Obama. Ayers, Wright, Rezco? Questionable character.
Nauseating.