It’s no surprise that you’re missing the point entirely. It’s only partly to do with his oratory skills. A lot of the emotional response has to do with what he represents, with the potential he has to clean up the mess of the previous Administration, and with the historical significance of him being elected.
Although you’re not an idiot, so I doubt you’re missing the point so much as being willfully antagonistic…
-TomI don’t think I’ve been particularly hostile in this thread, nor in any, really, since Obama was elected. I even changed my Facebook status to “YAY!”
But I’m being honest when I say that while I’m happy about Obama being elected, I’m not moved to the point of tears or overwhelmed with exultation. In fact, if anything I felt that way in 1992 when Clinton won. I practically idolized Stephanopolous and Carville, I loved Clinton’s appearance on Arsenio and his acceptance speech, I thought Hillary was great and I couldn’t wait to see what he would do in the White House. Hell, I even tried to like “Don’t Stop” by Fleetwood Mac (couldn’t pull that off, sorry). And while there were certainly plenty of disappointments (Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell, getting blowjobs in the Oval Office), generally I thought he was a decent president and had some pretty good accomplishments, welfare reform being the best of them.
But for some reason I’m not feeling that this time. Maybe it’s because I’m 16 years older? Who knows? But for whatever reason, that connection isn’t there for me. And when I see people going so nuts over Obama, my reaction is similar to the OPs - confusion, mostly. I wasn’t being insulting to Hugin, I was simply saying posts like that one are why I think the reaction to Obama’s election is a little overblown. It’s okay to say that, I think.
What I don’t think is saying that is a reason to “post in another forum,” or be called a dick, or have forum admins encourage others to ignore me. We’re all grown-ups here.
It’s been this way for 6 months. Give it another six and things are going to be very different when the jubilant masses discover either a) the real meaning of his “change” or b) that he can’t deliver whatever it was that people thought they were going to get.
Hmmm. I’m expecting to get pragmatic foreign policy, somewhat conservative fiscal policy (note his early overtures to the blue dogs), and progressive social policy.
I’m expecting transparency in government, an end to things like extraordinary rendition, and a withdrawal from Iraq.
Over his first term, I’m expecting immigration reform of some sort, and some kind of health care plan including mandates for children’s coverage.
I’m expecting changes to the tax code to restore the capital gains tax to near Clinton levels, as well as higher taxes for people making over $250K. Maybe not this year, but before the end of his term.
The fact you think these things are unachievable says more about your lack of faith in government than it does about my naivete. People are enthusiastic because they believe government can work for them given the right leadership, and they believe Obama can provide it for them. Given the political acumen he’s shown so far, I don’t see any reason why he can’t.
If you think people are only excited because they think he’s going to provide ponies, rainbows, and an early end to the recession, you’re underestimating the american public.
NWJ has been a very consistent lukewarm supporter of Obama from the primaries on, and I don’t get the sense he’s trolling this thread. He was saying in the primaries that people were expecting too much of Obama and he was worried about a backlash, and he’s still saying it. It’s a dour position, but I don’t see it as missing the point, unreasonable, or a provocation.
When Gandalf begans charging down the hill towards Helm’s Keep followed by a thousand-fold Riders. When Arnold is lowered into the molten steel at the end of Terminator 2. The last like…12 or so minutes of Armageddon.
I win.
Thanks, Mike. I’m not trolling. And I do have high hopes for the Obama administration, because I have high hopes for the country. I was in Europe on 9/11, and the outpouring of emotion and support I saw across the entire continent while waiting for my flight back to the US to be reinstated was both breathtaking and inspiring. I’d like us to get back there (obviously without an incident like 9/11), and I’d love Obama to be the one to make that happen.
I think my hopes are also dampened by the crises he faces now. Before we can go to Mars and rebuild our schools and provide basic healthcare for all of our citizens, we have to get back to where we were in 2000. That might take a huge chunk of his administration, and while it’s great to have someone thoughtful and measured in his responses at the helm, I hope we’re not left wondering what could have been had he walked into a more favorable situation.
It’s an Obamanation.
Your post got blurry and hard to read near the end…
Jessie “I’d like to cut his nuts out” Jackson’s tears didn’t move me, but the end of Iron Giant gets me everytime. Obama!
I think that singling out not just a specific poster but a black man’s emotional reaction to the Obama victory as being over the top comes across as hostile no matter what your intentions were. I am frequently a dick and I enjoy making fun of inappropriate emotional reactions (see: Freep thread) but I don’t see anything inappropriate about being deeply moved by what has just happened in this election. Certainly not enough to single out good posters who happen to have more investment in this than you do.
This is the problem right here. You are implying that people who are saying that they are moved to tears are just ‘professing’ to do so. Well that’s just being dickish, I’m sorry. It’s a cheap unnecessary shot.
Yes, how dare NWJ leave wiggle room in a sentence referring to someone claiming to have done something on the internet.
It isn’t rude, it’s common sense.
edit: Hell, I’m having serious trouble that anyone could feel anything other than relief at the end of Armageddon. That movie suuuuuuuuucked.
It’s just a weird way to engage with the discussion. There are two different thoughts being expressed here.
The one sentiment is that there’s too much adulation of Obama, that expectations are too high, and that people are letting their emotions sweep away their critical faculties. “Obamamania is getting out of hand”
The second sentiment seems to be that Jose personally never found Obama that emotionally affecting, and he thinks a lot of the people who claim they find Obama so are lying or exaggerating. “Obamamania is fake.”
The two thoughts are contradictory. The first is reasonable enough (my counter argument being that a lot of this sentiment is due to the exceptional circumstances more than any irrational love for the man himself), but the second, I’m sorry, does seem jerkish to me, especially given the mountain of real world evidence to the contrary.
I’m not saying it’s impossible to not be moved by Obama, clearly some folks aren’t. I’m just saying there’s so much documentable evidence of so many people being moved by Obama out in the real world (or the circumstances surrounding him therof), it moves from common sensical to churlish to say “Well, I bet a lot of them are faking it because it’s not an emotional reaction I personally share.”
I don’t think that there is anything contradictory at all. There are two groups of people NWJ is referring to: Those with an irrational exuberance regarding the election of Obama (“I won’t have to work on putting gas in my car, I won’t have to work on paying my mortgage…”) that has been exhibited by a statistically significant segment of his supporters, the “Obamaniacs”; the other is a group that according to NWJ expresses this same sentiment without actually experiencing the exuberance.
Would it be shocking that there is a bandwagon effect in a social movement with the energy and involvement of the Obama campaign, particularly in light of his victory? We see the same thing every year with Superbowl and NBA championships, as well as strongly-effecting events vis-à-vis false eyewitness, etc. I can think of nothing that has differentiated or excluded the political process from these effects and conditions.
What I think would cross the line if NWJ had called out people here specifically as being fake without any proof, which he hasn’t done.
Huh? I can imagine a few outlying Obama fans expecting him to pull down the moon, but a statistically significant segment? It’s a little insulting to imply that a large portion of his supporters did so only because they’re lazy. But maybe that’s not what you mean – or maybe there’s a segment of nutters out there I haven’t run across.
So what’s your point? Why is it bad to have energy behind something?
Or is it just bad because you don’t like the way the momentum is going?
He may be, but that’s not how he couched the argument. He expressed the second sentiment in support of the first idea. That’s why it felt so out of left field.
There isn’t anything wrong with what NWJ’s saying. He’s got a perfectly legitimate point of view, and the reaction to what he said here proves his point.
I was pretty moved by election day, but I’m a silly person.
I know it’s Yentapolicy to not trust a damned word Kotaku publishes, but this does reflect the sense that we geeks have a kindred spirit in the highest office in the land.