Cult of Personality
Over the weekend Lee at Digital Nicotine saw the Barack Obama “yes we can” video and it reminded him of Living Colour’s Cult of Personality. As Lee says, “Not so Much the Visuals, But Pay Attention to the Lyrics.”
In 2008 there are two candidates with groupies. One is Ron Paul whose legions include Nearly Naked Hotties. The other is Barack Obama. The difference (other than viability) is that Paul speaks in specifics while Obama simply speaks well. Hillary Clinton is correct about her Democratic opponent when she complains that all he does is give speeches, but he is so good at it that it’s not hard to imagine Obama reading the phone book and still attracting followers. He is entirely devoid of substance. However his strength, as Lee notes, is that he is a “Cult of Personality”.
Watch the video and see if you agree.
(ht:GR)
UPDATE:
One of Lee’s commenters summed it up pretty well:
The more I watch Obama, the less I know about him.
2nd UPDATE:
A commenter below says that if he had any computer savvy he would do this:
Now, THAT is begging to be a music video: clips from Obama’s speeches to the tune of “Cult of Personality.”
Anyone want to take that on? It sure beats that other Obama music video.
MORE:
Sean Braisted takes issue with my assertion that Obama is “entirely devoid of substance” by pointing out that I once excoriated the Illinois Senator for his figurative attack on Pakistan advocating a real attack in Pakistan. I had momentarily forgotten about that policy pronouncement that we should invade our allies while we surrender to our enemies. I think that’s exactly what Obama is going for: the Hope that others have forgotten about it too.
February 19th, 2008 at 7:08 am
What Obama *says* is light on substance, but I’m afraid that rather than being an empty suit, he’s being intentionally extremely deceptive.
February 19th, 2008 at 8:09 am
Now, THAT is begging to be a music video: clips from Obama’s speeches to the tune of “Cult of Personality.”
if i had any computer video savvy, i would do it myself.
February 19th, 2008 at 11:16 am
He’s not light on substance if you listen to his speeches in their entirety, or go to his website. He has a whole platform that covers almost everything, and on some things, like tech policy, he has a lot more to say than Clinton.
February 19th, 2008 at 11:39 am
I thought I was being linked to a In Living Color comedy skit, possibly with Keenen and Carrey.
*Rushes to Amazon*
*Purchases Living Colour*
Thank you for the link.
February 19th, 2008 at 11:41 am
corrected link
http://youtube.com/watch?v=qCCUUi5rx-0
February 19th, 2008 at 1:41 pm
Funny Bob, considering the US now seems to be doing what Obama was calling for; targeted strikes inside the borders of Pakistan to take out suspected Al Qaeda.
February 19th, 2008 at 1:46 pm
A better article… I await your criticism of the Bush Administration.
February 19th, 2008 at 1:56 pm
‘Anyone want to take that on? ‘
No. Living Colour has been known to sue.
And, as I told Sean at his site: Careful. If you keep pointing out that there is actually substance there if you read his policies, then people will realize he’s basically a socialist.
February 19th, 2008 at 8:00 pm
yeah, the commenters are right. it would probably result in a lawsuit.
But is there something we can about Hillary’s horrible campaign video?
February 19th, 2008 at 8:15 pm
He’s so cool I think he’s a good role model for Democrats and they can look up to him and hang out with him after school and play Xbox and do stuff. Oh and also policies.
February 19th, 2008 at 9:42 pm
[...] know, I thought the same thing. And Vernon Reid is a total bad [...]
February 20th, 2008 at 5:08 am
Sean,
You’ll be getting my criticism of the Washington Post and especially the anonymous military leakers who have compromised a highly sensitive operation and put our forces in Afghanistan at risk . . . but I’m too swamped with work right now to devote the time necessary to do that right. Bottom line: what we’ve been doing in Pakistan is likely known and understood by their leadership at the highest levels but has to be done covertly in order to give them plausible deniability. As you might suspect, US military personnel aren’t always the most welcome visitors–especially in a divided Islamic country in the midst of a power struggle and who just happens to have nuclear weapons. Obama was naive to demand overt cooperation when to do so puts at risk what we’ve been doing and the leakers should be prosecuted for, at the very least, divulging classified information.
February 20th, 2008 at 7:10 am
OK, so your problem with Obama is not that he would be willing to launch air-raids into Pakistan w/out their permission to go after Al Qaeda; its that he said ahead of time he’d be willing to do it?
February 20th, 2008 at 8:04 am
No. It’s that he would talk about it at all. And that he was so naive as to think that it wasn’t already happening.
Remember, my criticism of him originally was that he is naive and that his naivete is dangerous for America’s mission in Afghanistan. Look at a map and try and figure out how you’re going to support our forces there without the assistance of Pakistan. Can’t be done unless you also want war with Iran. We have to be very careful to not put Pakistan’s leadership into a position where they have no choice but to cut us off. If they do that we’ve lost Afghanistan. It’s that simple.
Let me make an analogy to the pre-Pearl Harbor days of WWII. FDR was astute enough to know that we would eventually be embroiled in that war. And he further knew that unless we wanted to launch D-Day from Greenland that we would have to sustain England for as long as it took. But back in America that was a decidedly unpopular proposition. So he and Churchill worked together quietly to support the UK. Had Churchill bragged about it or had his ministers publicly demanded more cooperation “or else” FDR would have had to scale back the support he already was providing. Churchill’s secret dealings with FDR afforded the latter the cover to do what needed to be done without upsetting the anti-war American populace.
Diplomacy isn’t as much about what you say as it is about what you don’t say. In that regard President Bush has masterfully played his hand in Pakistan.
The irony is that if Obama wins in November, he will probably be stuck in Iraq for every day of his presidency but will be forced to immediately withdraw from Afghanistan.
February 20th, 2008 at 10:06 am
Bob,
I’ll be honest, the American hating leftist that I am, I’m not a huge fan of covert, unauthorized CIA actions; I think there should be a degree of openness in our foreign policy.
You assume many things in your comment, namely that we will be forced to withdraw from Afghanistan should Obama become President; a conclusion I find reaching at best. He has said he would be willing to use force inside Pakistan with or without the Government’s approval; that doesn’t mean he is going to put out a press release when he does it. He has said he will do exactly the same thing you are now praising Bush for, the only difference being that Obama has admitted he’d be willing to do it.
February 20th, 2008 at 11:00 am
Covert? Yes. . . well, at least they were until yesterday. Unauthorized? Probably not. Either by us or them.
We have a convenient relationship with Pakistan. We keep our relationship quiet; they let us do what we need to do. Again, look at a map to see why that’s important. Our operations in Afghanistan receive a huge share of its support from the air. It is a more than 1,200 mile roundtrip from the Arabian Sea to Bagram Airbase near Kabul. To put that into perspective, that’s double the distance of the Luftbrucke that broke the Soviet siege of Berlin in 1948-49 and this aerial resupply mission has already lasted six times as long as the German one. The tyranny of distance is a major reason why we don’t have more forces there–we simply can’t support a much larger force. Anything that compromises our overflight rights makes what we’re already doing in Afghanistan virtually impossible.
Is Bush doing what Obama advocated? Maybe, maybe not. But if he is, he’s wisely not talking about it. And furthermore he’s doing it with carrots instead of the sticks that Obama has promised. It’s probably strange for you to envision that the Cowboy President is doing one hell of a job of diplomacy. But at least in Pakistan he is.
February 20th, 2008 at 12:01 pm
Bob,
You are simply assuming that he did this on the sly with Musharif without any evidence to back it up.
February 20th, 2008 at 4:57 pm
What sort of polity, constituency, and process spawns a sequence of candidates like George McGovern, Jimmy Carter, Fritz Mondale, Michael Dukakis, John Kerry, and Barack Obama?
February 21st, 2008 at 9:17 am
Sean, you’re not an “American-hating leftist.” But a leftist, yes you are. And your charming naivety on foreign policy makes you a natural supporter for Sen. Obama.
BTW: Thanks Bob for the linkage. Kadnine got the pleasure of reading his quote on Instapundit and puzzling for a second, “That sounds familiar….”