Change the entire World forever.

Discussion in 'Politics' started by Deno, Feb 5, 2009.

  1. Deno

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Apr 19, 2006
    Messages:
    4,771
    Albums:
    1
    Likes Received:
    27
    I voted for Obama and thought it was a great thing he won, watched the inauguration and was very inspired. I think he may be great for us all. BUT, I think it getting very crazy now that he's all but being made some kind of a saint. Every station you turn on there selling something that has his picture on it. Ever time the News comes on they have to be reporting about something. Can't they give him some time to actually do something before they report, its like the tv show 24, telling you everthing that happens in his life in 10 minute segments. And a news show is doing the first 100 days of Obama as president are they gonna start the second 100 days after that and so on. They are gonna make it so damn tiring to hear his name people are gonna stop listening. He made mention to a cover story on the magizine his family was on where J. Simpson was having a weight battle and they repeated it over and over again for days. Give the poor guy a rest already!
     
  2. dong20

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2006
    Messages:
    6,130
    Likes Received:
    5
    Location:
    The grey country
    Welcome to the cult of personality - somewhere down the line I can imagine a resurrection of the 'West Wing' ...:cool:

    While I think Obama brought a great deal of this hype and expectation upon himself, I do think and have remarked before that there's a [declining outside the US I think] degree of quasi messianic hysteria around the man that makes me feel vaguely 'uncomfortable' - which unless it subsides [and I think it will, eventually] may ultimately prove counter productive.

    I can only hope he doesn't make the mistake of believing his own PR. But in essence, I agree with you - let him get on a do the job he was elected to do, that said, reporting of his performance should be warts and all.
     
  3. mindseye

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2002
    Messages:
    5,685
    Likes Received:
    1
    Gender:
    Male
    dong20 calls this a "cult of personality". I disagree, and say that it's the novelty of a new president:

    You mention three aspects of Obama's "sainthood": tacky merchandise, news coverage, and the upcoming First 100 Days special.

    I can't defend the tacky merchandise -- but those tacky merchandisers capitalize on everything. Didn't we just recently stop hearing about those 9/11 memorial "silver leaf certificates" that are legal tender in Liberia, and have the numbers nine and eleven adding up to the face value of $20 (Liberian) dollars, yadda yadda yadda. Here were the commercials for the George W. Bush tacky coin: this is not a new phenomenon.

    Extra news coverage? I doubt it. I can't prove it, but here's one metric: In January, 1993, Clinton appeared on two out of four covers of Time. In January, 2009, Obama appeared on one out of three covers. In between, George W. Bush appeared on no covers in January 2001, but (due in part to the 2000 election drama), he was on six out of the eight covers in November and December 2000. This is a sample of only one magazine, and I don't advocate drawing a conclusion from only one data point, but. . .

    "First 100 days" specials are routine, but the last time we had one was eight years ago, so you might have forgotten it. CNN's special on Bush's First 100 Days is still online. The Washington Post had a special section on the topic as well. Jim Lehrer's NewsHour on PBS did an episode on Bush's First 100 Days, and still has available online their episode on Clinton's First 100 Days.

    In other words, all of the aspects you've mentioned are actually quite ordinary when there's a change of presidential administration; it's just that these things are so infrequent that we tend not to remember how bad they were in the past. (But trust me: I definitely remember seeing Bush's smirk everywhere in 2000-2001; I'm still traumatized over it!)
     
  4. dong20

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2006
    Messages:
    6,130
    Likes Received:
    5
    Location:
    The grey country
    Well it was meant somewhat tongue in cheek (hence the :cool:), but to be fair, I do think there's an element of both. The 'cult' aspect being amplified by the broad discontent surrounding the previous administration and the focus on 'change' coupled with the 'yes we can' mantra - other factors are at play as well.

    IMO, this has been reflected in some of the [admittedly, often infantile] terminology and name calling used here - although I'd worry if we considered LPSG could serve as a useful indicator of broader US social attitudes!

    I think there's a lot of truth in the above, and memory is tremendously selective but I don't recall the last few 'new' US Presidents receiving the quite level (and type) of coverage that Obama did - most especially outside the continental US.

    Of course there are some special and ground breaking circumstances surrounding this particular President which have skewed things, but still ... the expectations still seem (to me at least) to be raised somewhat above the norm.
     
  5. B_starinvestor

    B_starinvestor New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 1, 2006
    Messages:
    4,409
    Likes Received:
    0
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Midwest
    Here's a nice piece on the similarities surrounding JFK and The Chosen One.

    The Barack Obama-JFK Connection: Popularity, Oratory, Governing Style? - US News and World Report

    I've been following elections closely since '92. I haven't been able to find a credible source that can accurately illustrate the difference in this one. But from my personal experience, I've never seen anything like it.

    The OP is correct. The expectations are sky high. People that have no interest in politics, no idea what the hell makes up Congress, and no idea what electorate means -- are wearing Obama clothes, cheering, driving to DC to watch inaug. etc. Showing up on Oprah and balling, and so forth.

    In relation to Time's covers...if they don't have a good cover story, they just stick the POTUS on there. That's not an accurate indicator of popularity IMO.
     
  6. B_VinylBoy

    B_VinylBoy New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 30, 2007
    Messages:
    10,516
    Likes Received:
    7
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Boston, MA / New York, NY
    At one point do we all learn to think for ourselves and not let our American News media dictate every moment of your lives? We all know that the media has a way to glamorize and/or destroy anything it wants. Doesn't matter who you are. They control all the immediate images, so they also control our culture to some degree. People love drama and they also love a picture of perfection. So when they find an image that looks squeaky clean or one that looks battered, everyone writes a story about it.

    I know there's a campaign out there to make Obama seem like the holiest of Presidents. The same way there was a media campaign to make every Muslim from the Middle East seem like the boogeyman. And although I voted for Obama and support him now, I still have my head on straight and won't allow media to brainwash me into believing that he's the best president in the world. Not yet at least. Of course, conservatives will always generalize and think that Obama Supporters = Otaku, and there's nothing you can do to change that belief in them. But I digress...

    We can't let the media, or at least our immediate sources of it, dictate our lives. Because once that happens, you wind up starting an average of 2-3 threads a day on a big dick site about how "holy" or how "evil" the president or whichever political party is. Above all, today's media is in it main for the entertainment value and not for information.

    Do yourself a favor and watch CNN International for a few weeks, then TRY to turn back to regular CNN or Faux News and watch it for just one hour. You'll see the difference. :biggrin:
     
  7. mindseye

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2002
    Messages:
    5,685
    Likes Received:
    1
    Gender:
    Male
    Outside the continental US, I'd agree with you. (That didn't come out right -- I'm agreeing with you even though I'm inside the US. But, you know...)

    Prior to 2001, the United States had an international presence, but it wasn't as controversial and of interest to as many news consumers as it is now. I'd say that international news organizations are giving more coverage to the change in leadership precisely because the last one so polarized the international community.
     
  8. Jason

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Aug 26, 2004
    Messages:
    9,913
    Likes Received:
    637
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    London (GB)
    The media coverage of Obama that we are recieving in Britain seems far more extensive than for previous new US presidents (at least more than Bush or Clinton), and for more than for a new UK prime minister. There's some non-story about him being aired on BBC as I write this. It seems to me that the slant of the coverage - some of which is indeed messianic - is setting him up for inevitable failure, and this isn't healthy. The world expects Obama to solve all its problems, the world believes he can do this, and if he doesn't the world will be very angry with him.
     
  9. B_VinylBoy

    B_VinylBoy New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 30, 2007
    Messages:
    10,516
    Likes Received:
    7
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Boston, MA / New York, NY
    And that's the problem...
    Anyone rational already knows that one President isn't going to be able to fix all of the issues surrounding America and the world right now. If we're lucky, Obama can make it to 8 years and might have things going in the right direction. But still, there would be a lot of work to do.

    But how do we convey this message with those with the blinders on? Especially when you have his opponents taking every single moment of their breathing lives to point out every time someone forgets to dot an "I" or cross a "T" in our new administration? Instead of trying to help one another, they STILL want to try and destroy the reputation of their enemies and let the world suffer all so they can regain control in 2012. All the while forgetting that if the world is in worse shape then, how in the hell will THEY fix it?

    The only thing we can do is remain hopeful and prepare ourselves for the best (or worse). We need to look out for ourselves and not hope that one man has the answers to all.
     
Draft saved Draft deleted