Gimme An O
[2008-11-05 07:30]
O, as in "O thank God!"
I think I'm genuinely happy. I'm not sure what I should do about it. It's been awhile and I'm a little out of practice.
I'm so happy that Obama won and won decisively. It gives me hope, not about Obama, but about my fellow Americans. This is the first time I've felt really proud to be American. There, I said it.
On the other hand, the douche bags haven't gone away. I ran into the Charlie Rose show while channel-surfing yesterday featuring two editors from Newsweek. One of them, Evan Thomas, seemed like a dick and a lot like the typical pro-McCain flunky. What made Thomas such a dick were the snide and hypocritical comments he'd make about Obama without any basis or explanations to back them up. Or, like much of the opposition I've heard about Obama, he'd justify one unsubstantiated comment with another.
In particular, Thomas made three comments about Obama:
Obama's creepy cult of personality. Charlie Rose asked Thomas to explain what he meant by creepy and what he meant by cult of personality. I don't remember Thomas' response, but it seemed lame, half-baked and/or nonsense to me (not that I didn't agree with it, it was just not a good explanation).
Obama's lack of substance on policy issues. McCain and his supporters have leveled this charge against Obama before. Rose didn't question this comment but what I want to know from people who believe this is when, or in what way, has Obama not provided details about his policies and how has McCain been better? Does Obama go into detail during his stump speech? Of course not. That's not the purpose of those speeches. But if there aren't any details about Obama's policies, then how were these comparisons between Obama's and McCain's tax proposals possible?
Obama is highly manipulative. When asked to explain/clarify, Thomas backpedalled a bit and said Obama was good at controlling the crowds. It's clear to me that Thomas' choice of words (manipulative) was intended to be a criticism of Obama. But, again, he could not or would not explain why. It is true that Obama is good at working a crowd, but so is any good comedian (who knows how to time his/her jokes and work the laughs) or cheerleader. Evan Thomas has never been to a pep rally before, apparently.
In all of these cases, as with almost all criticisms I've heard about Obama during the campaign, nothing that was said about Obama was backed up by a clear example or explanation, and much that was said also applied to John McCain.
I can't say that Obama's race plays a part in Evan Thomas' dislike of him, but because Thomas could not or would not explain his opinions clearly, I can't dismiss that option either. [In Thomas' defense, Rose did cut him off at times, but I got the sense that that was because Thomas wasn't forthcoming with anything substantive.] It's possible that Thomas would have been as much of a dick about any democrat. But, at best, that means Thomas is still judging Obama based on what he is rather than on who he is.
That people like Evan Thomas do not understand Obama's appeal demonstrate to me that they just don't "get it". Obama's speech on race, for example, proved to me that he understands the issues of race and racism in America far better than most people do. This knowledge, born from his life experiences, demonstrates the substance of his character, and that's what I want in a president.
In O-ther completely unrelated news, did you see that Seattle's Top Pot was featured on the Travel Channel's Donut Paradise show? Go Donuts Go!