This morning, while Barak Obama’s Pennsylvania concession speech played on the radio, my wife turned to me and sighed.
“I’m sick of Obama.”
If my wife, who has been swooning over Obama since the 2004 Democratic Convention, is sick of Obama, the election season has gone on far too long.
UPDATE: I wanted to clarify that my wife’s frustration is with the campaign, and not Obama himself. The point of the post was to comment on the length of the election period. She still is a big supporter and absolutely wants him to win(though the crush may have worn off… 😉 ).
Tags: 2008 Democratic primary, 2008 presidential election, Barak Obama, election fatigue, Hillary Clinton
A Liberal Mormon 
April 23, 2008 at 7:21 am |
I actually used to really like Obama. He looks presidential, talks presidential, carries himself very well- all the things we don’t have in Bush.
It was the debate before last, though, that soured me to him. That’s when the media started asking him tougher questions and he started with the bullcrap lawyerspeak.
That’s when I started paying more attention to the guy and realized that not only is he a younger version of Slick Willy, he’s an immature elitist.
I loved that press conference back in March where he told reporters “C’mon, I’ve answered like 8 questions already.” Poor, poor Obama- having to answer “like 8 questions.”
Then there was Jeremiah Wright, the racist loon whom Obama apparently concurrently denounces and reveres. Obama sat in his pews for two decades, but apparently never heard Wright preach the hate that he, when finally pressed about it last month, called Wrights comments “incendiary statements that I can’t object to strongly enough.”
But what do I know? I’m, in Obama’s words, “a typical white person.”
Note to Obama: When running for president in a country who doesn’t take well to terrorism, you may want to more clearly distance yourself from a man who participated in bombing the Capitol and Pentagon, and who, after 9-11, commented about said bombings that “we didn’t do enough.”
See, that type of vague denouncement (“Not somebody I exchange ideas from…on a regular basis”) of William Ayers- a man with whom, according to his spokesman, Obama currently maintains a “friendly relationship”- may not go over well with your average no-nonsense American.
Obama is a paper tiger- a pretty packaged politician version of the New Kids On The Block. At some point the allure will fade, girls will stop fainting at his speeches, people will stop applauding when he blows his nose. Obama will be seen for what he is- an uber-liberal elitist and a false Messiah. If his performance in the last ABC debate is any indication, the wheels might be starting to fall off of the Change Express.
I just hope Obama’s crash occurs after he secures the nomination and before November.
As much as Hillary Clinton disgusts me, she honestly would make a much better president than Obama. Of course my cold conservative heart can’t help but chuckle that the Democratic Establishment is throwing her under the bus. Goodbye, Ms. Inevitable!
Election fatigue for you, Derek. Entertainment gold for me.
April 23, 2008 at 9:09 am |
I agree with your wife. I was one of the moderates who really wanted to believe this guy was different. I think part of it is that it is impossible with 24/7 media that we won’t eventually discover contradictions in what he has said, or other skeletons in the closet.
The other part that I just can’t get past is that Obama fervently believes in government to solve everything. The more I hear, the less comfortable I feel handing the reins over to him, and I’m forced to concede that McCain is the best candidate.
April 23, 2008 at 9:29 am |
A clarification: My wife does not dislike Obama now. She has not seen anything which has changed her opinion regarding Obama. She is simply sick of hearing about him. It is the interminable campaign that is driving her nuts, which isn’t Obamas fault–or Clinton’s, or McCain’s, or Bush’s or Howard Dean’s, or anyone else’s. The “fault” is the system which creates a two-year election cycle.
Aaron, it is wildly inaccurate to claim that Obama believes government can solve “everything.” Even if the statement were true that liberalism believes government can and should solve all problems (which is not a true statement), Obama is only moderately liberal.
April 23, 2008 at 10:37 am |
I got over the fatigue hump three months ago.
Now I’m a well-trained Obama supporter. I don’t hit-a-wall anymore in this marathon.
April 23, 2008 at 11:05 am |
I’m still in there for Obama. Will probably donate again soon. But it has become very tiring. I don’t think Hillary will get as much momentum as she wants out of this. Obama will probably take North Carolina and has a good shot at Indiana. He’ll surely take Montana and Oregon also. She seems to be training all of her people to be pushing taking it to the convention. I guess she believes this is her only shot. I don’t see it happening, however. The DNC knows this would be a huge mistake. It should be settled in June.
The thing I can’t take anymore of is the attitudes of some. Not only do they revel in insulting the other guy’s candidate but they take great pleasure in insulting the other guy himself. Why are Obama’s supporter’s so passionate? First of all, a lot of his supporters are young twenty somethings who by nature of their youth are more excited about things than those of us who are a bit more mature in years. Second, they are so worn out by the Bush years that they are desperate for change in what they believe will be a positive direction. I do not believe I have been duped by a “false messiah”. I already have a Messiah, thank you. Isn’t it time to get past petty name calling and get to work at fixing the mess our country is becoming?
April 23, 2008 at 4:42 pm |
I actually did understand what you were saying, and that your wife wasn’t sick of Obama himself, just the interminable campaign. I should have been clearer: I agree with you and your wife on the ridiculous 2-year cycle, but on top of that I have been disappointed by some of the sound bites from the man himself. If he is elected, I will support him and hope for the best. I just don’t find him to be the man I had hoped for.
Perhaps claiming that Obama believes in government to solve everything is overkill. I shouldn’t have used such absolute language. But he does fervently believe in government, far more than I do, to solve the country’s woes. Thanks for calling me on that. I would hasten to add that if Obama is only moderately liberal, then you true lefties are in dire need of representation, because I have heard a number of times that Obama rates as the most liberal sitting Senator (although Paul Wellstone would certainly have beaten him out, God rest his soul).
April 23, 2008 at 9:33 pm |
Obama’s rating as a “liberal” is meaningless.
For example, being in favor of the 9-11 commission was considered a liberal position.
And are conservatives really conservative? It seems to me that they’ve left us with the biggest budget deficits in my lifetime.
April 24, 2008 at 7:22 am |
Nikki, your second point has merit. There are a lot of issues that conservatives espouse these days that are not conservative in principle at all, and same with liberals.
This is all subjective, of course. Derek takes some positions that I hardly consider “liberal” at all, at least in the classical sense. Derek is characteristic of modern ideologues (and I’m an ideologue- I’m not knocking it) that apply a label to themselves based more on their interpretation of modern issues and less on classical political theory.
In a nutshell, what matters is what people THINK is liberal or conservative.
The organization conducting the study ranked votes as liberal or conservative based on polling data that reflects the current definitions of those labels in most voters’ minds. Ergo, if a certain position is almost universally held by liberals, though whether it’s truly liberal or conservative ideologically is up for debate, the position was considered liberal.
“For example, being in favor of the 9-11 commission was considered a liberal position.”
That statement is lazy at best, Nikki.
This study is done annually, and there was no vote covered by this study for simply being “in favor of the 9-11 commission.” The only vote this year having anything to do with the 9-11 Commission was Senate bill S-4, which was sponsored by Harry Reid.
As far as I can tell (the thing is about 1000 pages long), Republicans objected to it mainly because it essentially codified the 9/11 Commission into law, when parts of the commission report and recommendations were still disputed. Democrats wanted to implement the recommendations as-is in a lump sum, while Republicans wanted to hold out for a debate on the merits of remaining recommendations individually.
The bill passed 60-38. All but 12 ‘aye’ votes were Democrats.
So there’s a lot of bullcrap to sift through still, but the fact remains that for whatever reason, the only members of Congress who voted for this bill were liberals. It was therefore classified as a liberal issue in National Journal’s study.
April 24, 2008 at 7:50 am |
Nikki, you are totally right. I just said the same things almost verbatim on another of Derek’s posts perhaps two days ago. I for one would like to get rid of the labels and get back to being honest with ourselves about what’s right, then taking that position. Obviously we’d still have disagreements, but I don’t think they’d look nearly as glaring.
April 24, 2008 at 8:02 am |
The problem, Aaron, is that we need some kind of classification. It’s the way the human mind works. I don’t like the labels any more than you do, but despite the obvious existence of nuance, most politicians are either/or.
I actually think personal political worldviews have physiological roots- as in I think conservatives’ and liberals’ brains actually interpret the world differently in a scientific sense. Sure, there are a lot of people who aren’t so polarized, but when it comes down to it, most people- if they really look inside themselves- will find themselves agreeing with the basics of one political ideology or another.
When somebody is labeled “liberal,” they usually do take a liberal positions on the basic issues. Same thing the other way.
April 24, 2008 at 11:43 am |
If you wish to consider some of these positions conservative, fine. That’s your right. As long as virtually all the advocates and organizations promoting these positions (slow, local, and organic foods, simple living) are on the liberal side of the spectrum, I’ll myself continue to consider them liberal. I’m not chosing my positions because they come under the banner of liberalism, but rather I’m taking the label of liberal because the things people and groups on the liberal side of the spectrum stand for fits my personal ideology. That is how I remain honest with myself.
April 24, 2008 at 12:50 pm |
“If you wish to consider some of these positions conservative, fine. That’s your right. As long as virtually all the advocates and organizations promoting these positions (slow, local, and organic foods, simple living) are on the liberal side of the spectrum, I’ll myself continue to consider them liberal.”
Derek, I’m not sure what you’re responding to here.
“I’m not chosing my positions because they come under the banner of liberalism, but rather I’m taking the label of liberal because the things people and groups on the liberal side of the spectrum stand for fits my personal ideology.”
I’m assuming here that you’re responding to my last sentence, which I should have worded differently. What I meant to say was not that people choose positions based on what banner it’s under. I’m saying that while generic, the ‘L’ and ‘C’ labels are usually correct. You call yourself a liberal. Well, I can reasonably bet that you happen to agree with most of the basic liberal tenets.
April 24, 2008 at 10:32 pm |
D. Sirmize, I think you just validated my point even more. So when democrats vote as a block that’s automatically considered liberal? I don’t think so. If you want to call anything lazy, your definition of liberal is just that.
Is it considered conservative to spend $1.6 billion on programs designed to teach abstinence-only sex education because it has mostly republican support? (which, btw, do not work)
April 25, 2008 at 4:04 am |
“So when democrats vote as a block that’s automatically considered liberal?”
Yeah, pretty much. Today’s average Democratic member of Congress is much more likely to be a modern liberal than the average Democratic voter.
“Is it considered conservative to spend $1.6 billion on programs designed to teach abstinence-only sex education because it has mostly republican support? (which, btw, do not work)”
By my definition (and the definition think tanks and polling companies regularly operate under) your example is morally conservative but fiscally liberal.
No offense, Nikki, but if you’re attempting to refute the claims I’ve made here, please take them head-on and back up your claims. I think I’ve made some valid points. Go ahead, refute them. Don’t just lob drive-by’s.
If you’ll notice, I took your comment, agreed with one part of it, and thoroughly argued against the other. Please at least put up a good fight.
April 25, 2008 at 1:33 pm |
The only concession I’ll make is that when you label someone a “liberal” or “conservative”, you automatically attribute certain political viewpoints to them.
My point is that the labels are a conveniently lazy way to categorize people. I’m not saint here either. I’ve used these terms, especially when I feel like a certain person fits the bill.
One thing I admire about Obama is that he thinks debates on things like this (like ours) are pretty much a waste of time. As a result, he rejects anyone putting a label on him or his politics.
April 25, 2008 at 2:08 pm |
Nikki, has it occurred to you that Obama might be avoiding the “liberal” label because he’s trying to appeal to moderates at the moment? Have you noticed that McCain has been labeling himself a conservative a lot lately? He’s trying to shore up his conservative base.
It’s interesting that while you say you find this “debate” a waste of time, you continue to comment in this thread. I don’t consider this a debate really, nor do I consider it a waste of time. Discussing the importance/non-importance of political labels doesn’t need to be a partisan spat.
Let me make my point in different terms:
I recommend a restaurant to my wife on date night. She says “What kind of food do they serve?”
“What a dumb question,” I respond. “I’d like to avoid labels. It’s food.”
“Yeah, but I’d like to have some clue as to what I’ll be eating there.”
“It’s good food. That’s what kind. I could say ‘Mexican,’ but that would be a waste of time because there’s Tex-Mex, Fresh-Mex, Southwestern, Baja, Traditional. What good would labeling it do you?”
Do you see what I mean? There may be nuance in each political category, but the label does serve as a general idea of somebody’s politics. It’s not perfect, but it’s not a waste of time. If I were to come to you and say “vote for this guy.” You’d probably want to know a bit about what he believes before you commit, right? “He’s pro-life,” I tell you. Well, statistically you can bet he also agrees with the basic tenets of modern conservatism. And you’d probably reject him outright, no?
April 27, 2008 at 8:28 pm |
Actually I can’t bring myself to stop watching the carnage between Hill Clinton and B. Hussein Obama because I know once a Dem is nominated the fun will be over because John “Maverick” McCain wants to run a clean campaign and won’t attack or defend himself when the Dem gets ahold of him…………………….So I say let the carnage and chaos continue until the comvention in Denver………..>:)