Obama & Limits of Star Power --"When the container trumps the content"

LIMITS OF STAR POWER
Philadelphia Daily News

AT FIRST glance, Alycia Lane and Barack Obama might seem to have have little in common.
The former CBS 3 anchorwoman is white, female, single and out of a job. The Illinois senator is black, male, happily hitched and not about to visit the unemployment line anytime soon. They are about as different as the positions of Mitt Romney and . . . Mitt Romney.

But there's one vital thread that binds: The rock-star aspect of their public success.

Now before the Obama supporters start declaring jihad on my little piece of journalistic real estate, I'm not implying that the Iowa caucus winner (and New Hampshire runner-up) is all surface and no substance.

And, in fairness to Alycia, I'm not implying that her cheekbones are higher than her I.Q.

What I am saying is that these two figures are symbols of what we the public want and desire and hope for. And in failing to recognize that they are as human as you or I, in making them superstars in their respective fields, we are engaging in dangerous hero worship.

As far as the beautiful journalist is concerned, she created an earthquake on her arrival in provincial little Philadelphia back in 2003. Not since Jerry Pennacoli had his fateful meeting with a rumored gerbil did a local news personality cause such a stir.

And it wasn't as if Alycia wasn't competent.

She read copy with just the right amount of grace, pausing at the appropriate moments, flashing those impossibly white teeth and ever-so-gently tossing her glossy tresses to emphasize a point.

But, frankly, she wasn't John Facenda, a man whose voice narrated our history for decades, even after his death. She wasn't Jim O'Brien, whose folksy Southern ways melted the most jaded of Philly hearts. And she definitely wasn't Jessica Savitch, who embodied the term "Golden Girl."

Yet, hungry for a superstar, we made her into the anchorbabe who showed up as regularly in the gossip pages as she did before the TelePrompTer. Perhaps she began to believe her own legend, thinking she truly was "all that."

We still don't know what happened on that fateful December morning when her world began to fall apart. But I don't believe she was dumb enough to jump out of a car and assault a female police officer with a string of naughty phrases and a left hook.

And although the lawyer in me believes that CBS 3 was wrong to cut her loose before any final determination of guilt or innocence, the pragmatist understands why it had to. Alycia, the glorious New York princess who seemed to be slumming in Philadelphia (why was she always up in the Big Apple anyway?), had compromised her image, which, in the end, was the most valuable thing she had.

That's what happens when the container trumps the content.

So what does all this have to do with Barack Obama?

Plenty. Before this election cycle, the junior senator from Illinois was a relative unknown on the national stage. He'd won his Senate seat because his Republican challenger was a pathetic replacement for the original candidate, who had to withdraw from the Senate race because of a sex scandal.

Absent that scandal, Obama might still be killing time in the state legislature.

Not that Obama is unqualified to serve in Congress. Far from it. He's a Harvard-trained constitutional scholar whose oratorical skills rival those of Cicero.


AND YET, who can honestly say that, when measured against Joe Biden's foreign-policy expertise, or Bill Richardson's resume or John McCain, the personification of courage and constructive compromise, or Rudy Giuliani, who revitalized America's premier city, Obama really deserves to be president at this point in his life?

Lots of people, that's who. They're willing to discount his comments about bombing Pakistan and having powwows with Iran. (Biden would never have made such gaffes.) They're delighted that he's biracial because it makes them feel tolerant.

They smile at his confessions of having smoked weed and done "some blow" because they probably have, too. They don't care that he is adamantly, without-limits pro-choice (in fact, that's probably a plus).

They don't seem to care about these things, about his inexperience. But despite his setback in New Hampshire, the Obama phenomenon seems to be still alive and definitely kicking.

He tells his supporters what they want to hear, the college students who are sick of politics as usual and the voters of color who have made him the repository of their dreams and the people who think he'll be a uniter after years of bitter division.

I wish I could feel their excitement. But all I see when I look at the adoring crowds are hero-worshippers. And that might be OK when the hero is an anchorbabe. But it's not OK when the rock star is aiming for the White House.

Barack Obama might want to consider naming his next book "The Audacity of Hype." *

Christine M. Flowers is a lawyer.

http://www.philly.com/dailynews/opinion/20080111_Christine_M__Flowers__THE_LIMITS_OF_STAR_POWER.html




I love this line; "That's what happens when the container trumps the content."

LOL....

It's pathetic to see progressives and liberal suck up right wing shit just because it bashes a candidate they don't like. And this was about as obvious as it gets.

Perhaps you're just upset because when you shine a light on Obama you can see that he's not all he's cracked up to be, and this article does just that. You obviously prefer the illusion.

I'm betting she's a Romney-backer. Thanks for dragging her drivel over here.

given that she mentioned him more than once....

Sorry you didn't like it. I thought it was a good read...lucid and well thought out.

Cheers. :toast:

. . . without the container you never get the content.

By the way, Ms. Flowers is a conservative personal injury defense attorney - that means she whores and sweats for the insurance industry - "thanks for the premium and we'll never pay the claim." She called Cindy Sheehan a "sunshine patriot" - imagine that. No matter what injury or death happens to your kith and kin, Ms. Flowers shall have no sympathy for them.

As Dr. King said, "I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the CONTENT of their character."

Ms. Flowers would do well to take notice - and so should you.

it's how I pay my bills. So 'content' is very important to me.

I have to go deliver some 'content' right now, but I'll be back...

We're waiting.

Or is your "content" the same as Ms. Flowers?

you've been spanked. That was delicious. Imagine that; you love right wing trash talk and drag it here as proudly as a cat with a mouse.

:rofl:

the part of Flowers- much like drivel the OP has posted about obama. And the comparison to some plastic tv anchor woman who assaulted a cop, just made me giggle. Talk about transparent- trying to link Obama with whats-her-name is more than a bit obvious. And I hate to mention it, but Obama hasn't flamed out at all.

Not a very effective hit piece and made more ineffective by her praise of Rudy and McCain.

You should scour the internet for something a bit more intelligent or at least a bit less obvious.

A for effort. F for effective.

nonsensical content.

Not one unclear or nonsensical word in my post. You know it, but you can't refute what I said, thus your pitiful attack.

Makes me happy to rile you.

:rofl:

not in the least. I happen to agree with the writer, whether or not she's a republican. What she said makes perfect sense to me. But then again, I'm an Independent, and don't just follow the sheeple mentailty the way some candidates supporters do.

This article kind of reminds me of my 20's. When my girlfriends and I would go out to the clubs. Among the girls, there were many different mindsets as to who liked what kind of men. It worked out great though, as we never fought over men. I liked my men pretty, but if they were as dumb as a mud fence, I kicked them to the curb. A couple of the girls liked them pretty and didn't care about their intelligence. We also had a couple of girls that liked the celebrity types, and ignored all of the other men who would approach them. We called them star fuckers. They were only after the celebrity types because they got some kind of ego boost from it I guess. Or, maybe their priorities were just all wrong. Those girls, were always the ones who got hurt in the end too.

“She’s also a skilled politician,” Obama said, “and she’s run what Washington would call a ‘textbook’ campaign.

But the problem is the textbook itself. It’s a textbook that’s all about winning elections, but says nothing about how to bring the country together to solve problems.

A sleek hit piece - took me a few paragraphs to figure it out - but its a GOP-er slime nevertheless.
Christine, dear, Giuliani came to a prosperous city and ran us into debt. Lucky him, this became public on...September the 10, 2001....

Just about all of the "insightful political analyses" I've seen on ALL the candidates are little more than hatchet jobs. This criticism should be taken universally. For well over a week (an eternity!) we have been treated to only the very worst about our favored candidates.

Let me ask ... cui bono? For whose good? Who does it help? Not a single one of us.

I like Obama and considered myself to be a supporter until the anti-Hillary rhetoric ratcheted up. And all throughout this campaign, I felt that we Democrats were blessed with the positive problem of choosing among three of the best candidates in decades.

I'm not calling for a nicey-nice, bland, insubstantial race here. We should have an option other than either mud-slinging or fanny-kissing. Yes, I'm dismayed with the rock-star-groupie attitudes of some of the Obama supporters, but plenty of Clinton partisans have pissed me off, too.

I'm interested in how they deal with politics, with conflict, with trouble, and with adversity. Hard Work, the Audacity of Hope, and Taming The Corporations are admirable talking points, but they are not the substance of statecraft. None the less, Obama, Hillary, and John ALL offer heavy resumes of achievement, histories of accomplishment, and the promise of altering our coming history for the better.

But that's exactly what we are NOT seeing -- how an Obama presidency would be different from a Clinton or Edwards presidency. What we would get with John Edwards and what we would give up. Hillary making policy, not merely being expected to react to it. How the observed non-campaign responses of each compare to the others.

It is easy to see a candidate's flaws; it is obligatory for self-defined cynical political wonks like us, and it is the fashion among the Washington press corps. But the flaws are unimportant when it comes to setting and meeting an agenda. (Which also figures into why Bush has been such an insubstantial and trivial president; his entire agenda has been to impotently react to his own mistakes and to shift blame.)

It is far more difficult these days to figure out the value of a politician, because to do so is to invite ridicule and accusations of naivete. But in this election, that is what we have to go on. We have three excellent major candidates, any of whom will bring regeneration to America. Instead of choosing among the lesser of evils, we have a series of strong positive choices. This is new and disorienting. But I hope we will take up the challenge.

--p!

I agree with everything you've said, and probably couldn't have said as well.

Obama does not want to talk about the issues because he cannot compete that way... he is a great speaker but we need someone to handle the tough job of fixing what Bush has destroyed... If Obama was a white dude who went to Harvard and screamed "yes we can!" how many people would really show up?

Lots of people, that's who. They're willing to discount his comments about bombing Pakistan and having powwows with Iran. (Biden would never have made such gaffes.) They're delighted that he's biracial because it makes them feel tolerant.
----


Blatantly biased journalism is not journalism.

it's spoiled contents.

Really original. Oh, that's right. It's not. In the white neighborhoods of New York City when I was growing up, they had another way of saying the same thing:

N*gger rich.

These charges are an inch away from that, for the most part, with lots of winking.

I see nothing like what you suggested....lame attempt on your part.

If Obama's supporters are going to cry racism every time someone questions or criticizes him then he won't have a worm's chance in a pool of piranhas to win the general election, because America doesn't want to go through 4 years of hearing Obama's supporters and spokespeople use charges of racism every time Obama is cast in a bad light, which, when president, is almost every day. Your attitude, as reflected in your post, will kill Obama's chances if too many think the same way, and I'm beginning to think that is the inevitable case. Face it, Barack Obama has very little experience to prepare him for the presidency, particularly on the international front. Some people think that's ok, but don't pretend that it's not true.

Notice that most of those commenting on this post are going after the messenger rather than the content of her piece. I'm very much a progressive, but I don't make the same mistake that many who are criticizing this article you've posted seem to be making, and that is that not all conservatives are wrong, dumb, bad, or whatever other adjective one uses to avoid objectivity, and by the same token I don't accept everything stated by a liberal as Gospel. This "all or none" attitude is just another small-minded byproduct of the day.