The WORTH of a candidate is their campaign? Has the concept of ‘governance’ simply disappeared? Have we lost sight of the fact that the nominee must first win the goddamn election then govern? My gawd.
Obama has done a masterful job of branding his candidacy without branding himself, as a person, as the central issue. The campaign and the empty slogan for ‘Change’ are the focus of the branding. Yet does that automatically make him qualified to lead the most powerful nation in the world?
That, non-personal campaign, will not hold in the General Election. It will not hold if Senator Clinton simply continues to campaign until the convention.
The almost religious fervor of support at rallies, and on the blogs, show the evangelistic tendenacy of some portions of the Progressive when their buttons are pushed in a effective anti-government campaign. Voting for Obama as an agent for change doesn’t mean anything. The phrase has emotional appeal but no substance.
The branding techniques used are highly effective and backed great rhetoric. Yet neither technique or rhetoric can create ‘change’. No President can command the House and Senate to do a damn thing.
Whatever WH proposal, no matter how realistic, must first pass being modified by a 435 person House and a 100 member Senate. It is that reality that demands a person that knows The Hill intimately.
Rhetoric alone, without a substantial majority, will get the new President nothing. Mr. Bush is finally discovering that reality.
If the deep and vicious divisions in the political blogsphere continue I see a fractured Democratic Party in the fall if Obama fails to win the Nomination.
Clinton supporters I believe will bite the bitter bullet and work for the higher good. I have no such confidence in the evangelistic Obama supporter. The dialogue has been too personal and vicious. It makes 2004 look like a kindergarten playground.