Why Obamamania?

By David Greenberg
Sunday, January 13, 2008; Page B04

Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton's upset victory in the New Hampshire primary last week was every bit as impressive as Sen. Barack Obama's Iowa caucus breakout five days before -- if anything, more impressive, since his win was predicted and hers unforeseen. But the reactions to the two events couldn't have been more different. Obama's Jan. 3 triumph let loose a giddiness bordering on exhilaration among voters and, especially, media commentators, who hailed his triumph as "historic," even though he was not in fact the first African American to win a major presidential nominating contest. (Jesse Jackson won 13 primaries and caucuses in 1988.) By contrast, when Clinton overcame long odds to become the first woman in U.S. history to win a major-party primary, no leading news outlet trumpeted this landmark feat. Many failed to mention it at all.

This startling difference underscores one of Obama's advantages heading into the do-or-die Feb. 5th contests. "Obamamania" sputtered in the Granite State, but it is far from dead. Many of the voters and pundits who were thrilled by Obama's compelling Iowa speech 10 days ago remain intoxicated, heady with the hope that he can deliver not just "change" -- any candidate running would do that -- but a categorically different kind of change from Clinton or the Republican candidates. So what explains the magic?

The most obvious explanation is Obama's stirring oratory, with its notes of generational change and unity. The key to his seduction, though, resides not just in what he says but in what remains unsaid. It lies in the tacit offer -- a promise about overcoming America's shameful racial history -- that his particular candidacy offers to his enthusiasts, and to us all.

Obama's allure differs from the infatuations of past election cycles because it can't be traced to what he has done or will do. In his legislative career, Obama has produced few concrete policy changes, and you'd be hard-pressed to find a rank-and-file fan who can cite one. Not since 1896 -- when another rousing speechmaker, William Jennings Bryan, sought the White House -- has the zeal for a candidate corresponded so little to a record of hard accomplishment. But merely asking if Obama has done enough for us to expect he'd be a good president misses the point, because that measures the past rather than imagining the future.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/01/11/AR2008011101414.html?nav=hcmodule

a dirty word) with the Obama campaign. If this theory rings true,that Obama gets a lot of support from white voters because he fits a narrative they have of themselves,then any deviation from that narrative crumbles like a house of cards should it disappear.

That is why she will be a terrible nominee if she makes it to November.

advantage of the Conservative personalities who want to be told everything will be OK in a frightening world.. this technique works best when you have no solutions to offer.. thus eliminating any boring debate... it is the same tactic the Thugs use..

and has no control over the voters own perceptions as to what his candidacy means to them. I simply am pointing out that he walks a very tight rope in modern day America and if the narrative does not fit those perceptions and he gets the nomination,I worry about his chances of surviving the land mines the reps are sure to put out.

He actually accomplished alot in the Il legislature Which of course was not mentioned. What he has done, he has modeled what he means by bringing a governing majority to bear to make landmark reforms in Il. Do a little research on this. And the article truly misses the point completely.

so you might as well say he deserved to die in Memphis. I think not.

The world isn't frightening, it actually quite mundane and often even enjoyable, unless you live in a paranoid state.

of me but thanks for your pronouncement based on absolutely nothing but hacks.

or your personal reasons for supporting your candidate.The article is not about you .

in the process. As a Dem I welcome that. We will need every vote we can get no matter who is the nominee.

He has a message that seems to be resonating with a lot of people. At the end of the day that can only be good for the party.

the 2 out of the 3 that lose the nomination, continue to fight whatever their fight is. I hope that Edwards continues this fight and badgers whoever the president will be. the same for hil. and i hope the same of Barack.

that Obama accomplished zip in his legislative career re policy change. Let me give you two big ones from his days is the Illinois leg: he authored, sponsored and got passed a law requiring police videotaping of interrogations- against much resistance. He worked on and passed a strong lobbying reform law. In the U.S. Senate it's fair to say that Obama has accomplished much policy change, but what policy change has Clinton managed?

differences between Clinton and Obama,or Obama'a work in the Illinois legislature.Surely you've noticed that there are many people out there who can't even tell you why they support Obama.

is the perception that Obama soothes a racial wound felt by white America. The few sentences concerning his legislative record are a sidenote.