Cult of Personality: Last Century, This Election

In a political group in which I’m a member, somebody said not to get to hopeful about Obama winning the election. The person stated that in the past thirty years, only one Democrat has been elected. Carter lost. Mondale lost. Dukakis lost. Gore lost. Kerry lost. And, not only that, they were all white. Point being that Obama has a challenge they didn’t even face.

Going back further, after Dem Woodrow Wilson and WWI, Republicans took office through the Roaring Twenties until the stock market crash and the term of Herbert Hoover. For the next twenty years, Democrats reigned as FDR took four straight terms and then Truman was nearly coerced into the VP of his fourth term.

As irony has it, Truman became the president by default only three months into that four years, and a tumultuous four years it was. Surprisingly to many, he won over Republican shoe-in Dewey and served a second term. You all remember that famous picture of Truman holding up the newspaper declaring Dewey’s win over him!

So, anyhow, that finishes World War II, takes us into the Korean War, China, Pakistan and a plethora of controversial issues. Truman has been called the most unpopular president ever in some history books, though most of us only remember that smiling picture. General Eisenhower, who courted neither party, was then courted heavily by Republicans, drafted into their team and ran against Truman’s Bush-like popularity with reform promises a simple slogan: “I like Ike.” He served two terms, defeating Adlai Stevenson both times. Why they chose to run Adlai Stevenson against him both time, ask someone else. I do not know.

So, time for a change. Kennedy was ushered in a landslide. Nah, I lied. It was one of the closest races of popular votes in history: 2/10ths of 1% or 49.7% to 49.5%. Weird, huh? And, guess who he beat in that one? Richard Nixon.

Kennedy got shot. Johnson finished that term, and ran against Barry Goldwater for a second term. Back then, there was this ad called the Daisy Ad. It showed a girl with a daisy, petals being picked off one by one as she counted to ten, then a countdown of ten to one brought the conclusion of a nuclear blast with the message to vote for Johnson. Point made was: Goldwater meant nuclear war. It worked, too. A real landslide this time.Lyndon Johnson won. Oh, guess who found a copy of that ad for you? You don’t have to search it out, if interested.

1968 election. Wow. The times must have felt crazy. Even crazier than today. Robert Kennedy Jr. was running. He was assassinated. Martin Luther King was speaking about equality. He was assassinated. The Democratic party was split into arguing factions. People were protesting Vietnam. George Wallace carried a lot of the south in a third party, often accused racist.

Nixon was back, running against Democrat Hubert Humphrey. Eugene McCarthy (polar opposite of Josephy McCarthy, known for McCarthyism) had been trailing for the nomination, and Robert Kennedy was in second until his death. Humphrey lost to Nixon, who ran on a campaign of perceived stability in unstable times, and appealed to the conservative majority who were unhappy with the hippie movement and protestors. The truth is, if the Dems hadn’t factioned so badly, Humphrey might have won. The race was close.

The 1972 landslide victory of Dick against George McGovern (who ran an anti-war campaign) was a landslide in the sense McGovern took only one state, and it wasn’t even his. He was from South Dakota. He took Massassachusetts. Another odd fact. Still alive, he actually has appeared for interview during the campaign process.

Now, before Carter lost, Carter won. After the mess of Nixon stepping down, Ford taking office and immediately pardoning Nixon, he wasn’t very popular. The tides changed, and Ford running actually made Carter a bigger shoe-in for the ones who had lost trust in the government. Again.

Okay, so with Carter, he had at least two thing killing him going into a second term. One, he was running against a new kind of candidate, celebrity turned politician. Second, there was an ongoing hostage crisis and a failed rescue attempt. Carter was diplomatic, but seen as ineffective. Oh, and inflation skyrocketed as job growth stagnated, coining the term: stagnation. I’m simplifying his issues, but those were two major ones, with a lot of little ones peppering the election.

Back to the writer who said Carter lost. Mondale lost. Dukakis lost. Gore lost. Kerry lost. I say Woodrow Wilson won. FDR won. Truman won. Kennedy won. Carter won. Clinton won. Gore did win the popular vote, and was later said to have won the election to which he conceded loss.

Now, the black thing. The Muslim thing. The old thing. The cancer thing. The experience thing. The war thing. All relevant in today’s election. Can Barack Obama (which sounds so much like Osama), whose middle name is Hussein (like that bad guy who got hanged), who’s had a questionable pastor, a questionable birth certificate, questionable ties to terrorists, plans for tax increases, unleashed spending, and little experience…

…win against…

John McCain, the Maverick, who voted with Bush unless he was against him, who supported his stances, unless he changed them, who accuses Obama of slimey attacks even when he spews them, who has battled cancer four times and is the oldest candidate in the history or history when he ridicules Obama’s naiviete? Can the man who spent eighteen months ignoring or diminishing Barack’s years of teaching constitutional law, years in the state senate, and time in the U.S. senate and choice of a foreign policy expert as a running mate defend his VP pick, citing her experience in the PTA, mayor of a town of 5,000 (at the time), and experience in a gubernatorial position that only oversees a state that is about the size of Indianapolis?

Can he accuse Obama of lies or exaggerations when he uses Palin’s proximity to Russia as actual experience and title of the head of the Alaska National Guard, when record states that she has never needed to utilize that power once? Can he point out Reverend Jeremiah Wright’s connection to Obama but dismiss Palin’s odd church videos turning up on YouTube where her church prays away the gay and prays over her to protect her from witchcraft?

I think both will struggle. I have taken the time, this election, to read every page presented at FactCheck.org and see how much each candidate speaks the truth, stretches the truth or ignores the truth. I have also read the pages at JohnMcCainDotCom and at BarackObamaDotCom to get informed on the nitty gritty details of their stances.

Personally, I like Obama because he is calm, polished, eloquent and inspiring. I think his style is very Kennedy-esque. I am not part of an Obama cult. I am not blinded by Obama Wan Kenobi and against Darth McCain. Heh. I think McCain’s been nasty, negative, petty, dismissive and condescending. I’ve caught him in lies and when I saw him go after Barack for “lipstick on a pig” and saw the context, then the video of him saying the same thing regarding Hillary Clinton’s health care plan, I was disgusted.

Besides that, his platform, his entire platform…I like it. His stances on economic issues speak to the people at a time when people truly need it. His ideas on foreign policy are aligned with mine and would potentially bring a friend of mine home alive sometime within the next presidential term.

I disagree with John McCain on virtually every stance, from choice to AK-47s, to gays, to war and “bombing Iran” and to the campaign ads and tactics I’ve watched him use. I’ve even watched as he changed his message to change and reform MID-campaign, and agreed with Obama that we need it, but decided he would be the one to bring it. And the Trojan Horse of Sarah Palin was supposed to make us think everything was different. They’re still anti-choice, pro-war, pro-big business, pro-degregulation, etc. Country First means little to me when I watch the man use 9/11 to garner attention, being a POW to garner attention and then constantly attack Obama instead of give details… that’s with a D… about the specifics of how he will help me, you, our soldiers, and another huge one: our image within the world.

Obamas’s choices of slogans cut right to the heart of his overall message: The audacity of hope. The time is now. The change you need. We are the ones we’ve been waiting for.

He has a way of doing the one thing that, in today’s society, is more difficult than any other: inspire the little people, the common man, to think… to realize they can make a difference in the future of our country by shedding the apathy, complaint, disappointment and shadows of the past. We win a little bit, then a little more, then a little more…. just by showing up!

Anyway, on one last note, thatnks for reading my ramble. I think this cult of concern should be just that, a concern over the issues, not a Cult of Personality, although I think McCain’s personality sucks balls, when it comes down to it.

I’m not asking anyone to vote for any candidate they don’t want to see in office, the lesser of two evils or whatever.

I’m not asking anyone to agree with me, with my views.

I’m just asking, actually…hoping people care. That’s it. That’s enough.

<3

Obama: Ready at the Helm vs. McCain: Ready at the Trigger

Thinking back to Sarah Palin’s RNC address, she refused to even once state Obama’s name. She merely referred to her “opponent” as if NAMING him gave him a deference that she wouldn’t allow. At the time, I noticed it and thought how petty that behavior was. It almost seemed like cloaked racism, but I knew Barack Obama would never pull that race card and stoop to the level of the current Republican campaign.

Now, during the first presidential debate in Mississippi, Senator McCain made a point of not looking at Obama, even when asked to address each other by Lehrer. He looked at the darkness that was the crowd and made a plethora of faces as Obama made statements to Lehrer, to the crowd and to John McCain himself. He blinked as if confused, smirked as if he was hearing nonsense, rolled eyes and shrugged as if Obama’s words were “just silliness, my friends,” made hand gestures of time wasted on lies.

He basically was dismissive and condescending to someone who took the time to be respectful and courteous, even when objecting to a perceived misstatement. McCain interrupted more hastily and spoke to Lehrer and the crowd as if Obama was as inexperienced as Palin. He paid no attention to Obama’s work in South Chicago, his “constitutional law” experience (when he cited the desire for any Supreme Court Justices he might appoint to be “strict constitutionalists on The View”. He ignored Obama’s state senate effectiveness (other than to bash earmarks) or his U.S. Senate time as having any meaningful use brought to the table of experience. He acted as if Obama is a flubbering novice and he is an expert on both foreign policy and the economy, though he’s been proven otherwise and even admitted his own flubs in the past.

I think when Obama saw the strategy that McCain was using, he changed his own. His early aggressiveness morphed into calculated sportsmanlike conduct, to frame McCain very clearly as the aggressor: a testament to McCain’s ill temperment. Obama stepped back and behave the gentleman and leader: eloquent and confident, gracious and graceful. He hit home where needed: that Spain is an ally, McCain’s Bomb Iran song, and on Iraq saying “You were wrong. You were wrong. You were wrong.”

He showed comprehension by simply following Lehrer’s request to address the candidate. This showed respect to Lehrer’s wishes and he also complimented and respected McCain, while showing disagreement on the issues.

He showed true bipartisan appeal by addressing his common ground with McCain BEFORE stating the fundamental differences. Though the McCain campaign tried to present this as weakness, on the contrary, it shows his appeal to future peace talk negotiations and humanitarianism efforts in the global issues.

Also, I believe he knew that this was supposed to be McCain’s strongest debate. He met him head on and equally, but did not overtake and overdo an aggressive stance. That was a good first strategy, though it has disappointed many staunch Democrats. As a black man, race is still a factor in this race. He may not address it publicly as an outcry, but he has to deftly walk the fine line that he allows to remain invisible, but sees quite clearly.

He has to be wary of aggression and evangelical passion. His polished, very calm, informed, jovial confidence will go well to winning those who were concerned he was a Jesse Jackson type in sheep’s clothing.

I believe he did win over some undecideds with his stable demeanor and he allowed McCain to “act out” if you will, showing the  cantankerous, condescending, dismissive, pandering flip-flop king his negative attacks to be his only strength. McCain will be called out for this sharply, by the press and by the people. Obama was placing himself in the catbird seat and can quietly sit back and let the people attack. Then, deftly, he can place appropriate ads showing the reactive and destructive McCain being so out of touch, he cannot even debate with eye contact or say the words “middle class.”

I see good things ahead. Last night was the continuation of the plan that allows McCain to dig his own political grave while Obama merely steps into the Presidential role during the campaign, subliminally getting the voter to see it as the inevitable and only choice for true change: no condescion, no double talk, and a strong, proactive and productive leader at the helm.