Wednesday, November 5th 2008
Obama’s President: Let’s Celebrate!
It was 8 pm Tuesday night, election day, and our President of the United States of America had already been decided. I thank all of the intelligent people out there for voting for Obama. As one UC Berkeley student put it: “I feel awesome. I feel magnificent. I feel like the heavens above have opened.” We no longer have to wander through life hoping to find the Messiah, he’s already here. He has promised us change; he has promised us hope; and he has promised us a brighter future. Praise the Lord, or shall I say Obama, that he is our President (I think I hear terrorists praising Allah too).
But I’m not so sure about our future which will be subjected to a “socialist agenda”. This new American idol that we have elected is going to have to work pretty hard to live up to the public’s standards. Or will he? Could it be possible that this man has achieved such stardom, such a cult gathering, that it won’t matter what he does? Immediately following his election, I couldn’t help but feel apprehensive about the future, and this is why.
Let’s just look at the current situation. Maybe it’s just my libertarian tendencies, or maybe it’s just my natural inclination to be weary of one man having too much power. Too much power and influence breeds corruption. But this is what I see. I see people walking around with a president on their t-shirt (even before he was elected) in a fashion that harkens back to Che Guevara t-shirts. Now, I’m not going to go into how I feel about Che (the evil of Latin America responsible for killing many innocent people), but I will go into how I feel about a president being paraded around on a t-shirt. The president is elected of the people, by the people, and for the people. This is a symbolic position for a man elected to lead the Land of the Free. Obama is supposed to be on the same plane as us, and for good reason. We must never forget that we are what makes this country. But instead we have elevated a man to the status of an idol. Obama’s support has turned into a cult following and transformed into a fashion statement at the same time. This is a tremendous change in the way we view the president, and we should be weary of this. Now I’m not saying that Obama is an evil man or has “bad intentions” for our country (if you don’t count quasi socialism as bad), but I am saying that these sorts of sentiments and role reversals of the expectations of the president remind me of recipes for dictatorships. It makes me worry for the Land of the Free.
But why shouldn’t people express their overwhelming support for him in this way? They finally have found a president that they “actually like.” At the end of the day, it’s not doing anybody any harm, and as some say, he’s inspirational. Sure, it doesn’t really matter, but it’s the message being portrayed that is significant and it’s the feelings behind the movement that are significant. Like I said, it creates a sort of culture, or a cult status, which in turn leads to an inclusive-exclusive society. You are either with the Obama lovers or not. And if not, you’re clearly out of style, anti-change, anti-hope, and anti-inspiration. So buy a t-shirt, they’re cheap on Telegraph Avenue in Berkeley. Bye-bye freedom and individuality and hello forced ignorant assimilation. I want to be in the “in crowd too” which is perpetuated by the media. They support this divide through popular programs which champion Obama’s cause.
And the “in crowd” is everywhere here on campus. It doesn’t even escape the classrooms where one would expect to find a neutral zone of learning. Instead, I have to sit in a lecture and listen to the Professor pour compliments on Obama for five minutes. The day after the election, I walk into class to find a huge projection of Obama on the board and the Professor telling us that he’s not really endorsing a president because we have to support him since he is now our president. Exactly. I support him just as much as the Democrats supported President Bush. How dare a Professor tell us that we have to support Obama. Did he support Bush? NO. My point is: Was this really necessary? I doubt he would have put a picture of McCain up if he had been elected. The classrooms are not a place to be biased. This just shows how much the nature of how the public supports the government has changed and how the biased educational system can mold the young minds of America to think in a certain way. And again, I don’t like it. I wouldn’t like it even if McCain was projected on the board.
But Obama’s entourage is everywhere. Literally. Right after his election, the streets around the University were swamped with what looked like every possible liberal in the city. Disregarding the law, students rushed to the streets and blocked traffic (which made people like myself angry in our attempts to get home). This was the high point for Obama’s cult. They welcomed this new era of change by coming together into a mob, disturbing the peace by yelling and honking horns all night, stopping traffic, defacing public property by spray painting sidewalks, thrusting a cardboard figure of McCain into people’s faces, and just generally pissing off people who wanted to study. I commend the liberals for being so peaceful, so moral, and so refined. Obama sure did unite UC Berkeley students. It makes me wonder what will happen in the future. This is change; but not for the better. Putting his “fair” policies aside, is a president who can move the public in this way really good for America? Is President Obama becoming a fashion statement and idol in line with American standards?
Let’s take a step back for a second. I guess I can appreciate the fact that finally the youth can be excited about someone, even if he is a quasi socialist president. Even more so, what I love so much about America is the fact that we can have a peaceful transfer of power after an election. At the end of the day, he is the president of our country, and I will stand by him. To see so many young people so happy, holding American flags, and finally showing some pride in their country is a refreshing sight at UC Berkeley. Yet, this still doesn’t change the fact that Obama is a new American icon. This doesn’t change the fact that the youth have been indoctrinated to love a President just because of his image. Love him or hate him, Obama becoming president of the United States is an historical event. I just hope that our future doesn’t see a time in which the framework of our country continues to be unraveled and that any criticism of our new American idol, President Barack Obama, will fall on deaf ears. Don’t let stardom blind you. And no, I won’t buy a t-shirt with his face on it.
Are you kidding?! I’m getting an Obama tattoo!!!
Comment by Francesca — 11/6/2008 @ 2:07 am
It really is funny how they go to such lengths in order to subvert the rules: The Chancellor’s op-eds, pictures of Obama on overhead projectors, “I’m not endorsing, but….” Professors can’t help but squirt themselves.
Comment by Spencer Doyle — 11/6/2008 @ 2:32 am
Nothing personal, sonny, but for the past eight years the only celebrating I’ve seen being done around the world is when someone kills an American. It’s kind of nice to see everyone else in the world, except al-Qaeda who isn’t happy about it, celebrating our “Country of Dreams” again, all having been done with absolutely no thanks to you or the rest of you poor, victimized, spend-our-way-out-of-every-problem “conservatives.”
Comment by Jack — 11/6/2008 @ 7:31 am
I had the same thoughts regarding the student gathering in the streets. How dare they celebrate and come together during a momentous event in American history! Instead of expressing hope and optimism together, they should have neglected to recognize the historic nature of the moment and remained alone in their apartments, cynically chiding the peaceful and exuberant party because their candidate did not win. How can we possibly commend thousands of students singing the star spangled banner around the campanile when they should have been studying in the library? Berkeley should be ashamed of this outpouring of…well, I call it patriotism, but it’s only patriotic if it comes from the right.
I am certain you felt the same after the 2002 Big Game, when students rushed the field, tore down the goalposts, and paraded them down Bancroft avenue, blocking traffic and causing much more property damage than occurred last night. Please join me in condemning the actions of these students for having the gall to celebrate Cal’s first big game win in 7 years. Certainly none of the California Patriot staff participated in these riots; after all, it would be hypocritical to participate in a spontaneous outpouring of joy in one case and condemn it in another, just because of who you support.
Comment by Will — 11/6/2008 @ 12:51 pm
Yes, I guess it would be hypocritical. I imagine the only person on the Patriot staff who was even around back then was me, though, and I do recall scratching my head and thinking “WTF?” Of course, no one was yielding rulership authority to the Cal football team.
If you are illiterate enough to think condemning singing the star-spangled banner around the Campanile is going on here, though, there’s hardly any point in explaining this.
Comment by Justin! — 11/6/2008 @ 1:10 pm
“If you are illiterate enough to think condemning singing the star-spangled banner around the Campanile is going on here, though, there’s hardly any point in explaining this.”
Well, there is certainly no mention of the campanile singing in this post. All I see are pretty sour grapes expressed towards a group of people that weren’t gloating or protesting or causing any damage, aside from stopping traffic and creating noise than a closed window would silence. Here’s an example of young people FINALLY excited about politics and our democracy, and the best you can do is complain that they were violating quiet hours? I’m all for studying; I love learning about historic moments, but when one actually comes along, shouldn’t people be commended for participating in it? Shouldn’t we be allowed to celebrate it for a few hours?
It’s pretty weak to complain about the celebration and then slam me for implying that the complaint includes the entire celebration. If the author wanted to laud Berkeley students for the incredible, spontaneous example of patriotism displayed at the Campanile, he or she had the opportunity. Instead, what we got was an unbelievably short-sighted complaint. Too bad you weren’t born 50 years ago - you could have watched the March on Washington and complained about noise.
Comment by Will — 11/6/2008 @ 2:29 pm
“They welcomed this new era of change by coming together into a mob, disturbing the peace by yelling and honking horns all night, stopping traffic, defacing public property by spray painting sidewalks, thrusting a cardboard figure of McCain into people’s faces, and just generally pissing off people who wanted to study.”
“To see so many young people so happy, holding American flags, and finally showing some pride in their country is a refreshing sight at UC Berkeley.”
Comment by Justin! — 11/6/2008 @ 3:00 pm
“They welcomed this new era of change by coming together into a mob, disturbing the peace by yelling and honking horns all night, stopping traffic, defacing public property by spray painting sidewalks, thrusting a cardboard figure of McCain into people’s faces, and just generally pissing off people who wanted to study.”
“To see so many young people so happy, holding American flags, and finally showing some pride in their country is a refreshing sight at UC Berkeley.”
So, if I am to understand correctly, happily holding American flags is “showing some pride in their country,” but actually talking or, god forbid, cheering while holding said flags is considered a “mob” and “disturbing the peace”. If only they had kept their voices down while singing at the campanile so people in Doe could study - next time try humming, you ill tempered and destructive mob!
Comment by Will — 11/6/2008 @ 3:17 pm
You did notice the stuff about the vandalism, yes?
Comment by Justin! — 11/6/2008 @ 3:42 pm
Spray painting sidewalks, on noes!
If you honestly think that thousands of Americans celebrating an absolutely historic moment was a bad thing because of spray painted sidewalks…I mean, really? Everyone should have just stayed home, because a few sidewalks were going to get spray painted??
The difference in magnitude between the historic event and the things you are complaining about is mind boggling. Quick, cancel all Cal football games because someone might litter!
Comment by Will — 11/6/2008 @ 3:48 pm
No, the point is you can celebrate without being a dick. And folks chose not to. No one’s calling for an end to celebrations. The question is whether a president who can force folks to go nuts in celebration is really a good thing in a free country.
Comment by Justin! — 11/6/2008 @ 3:54 pm
So spray painting sidewalks makes you a dick? What about singing, or cheering, or laughing or talking excitedly? How exactly were they “dicks?”
Look, I’d agree with you if people turned over cars or started shooting guns in the air, but this was just a happy release from people desperately wanting a change in the direction of the country. To complain about a few people (out of 10,000!) spray painting sidewalks is unbelievable. This was a monumental event, and attempting to tear it down because of a guy with a spray paint can is a bit short sighted and petty, I’d say.
For a party that instituted torture and started a couple wars, republicans are huge pussies.
Comment by Will — 11/6/2008 @ 4:11 pm
So, Let me get this straight:
1) You’re wary of OBAMA having too much power with T-SHIRTS, when President Bush did more to consolidate power (while completely ignoring other branches with power) than any other president in history?! REALLY!?
2)“You are either with the Obama lovers or not.” And everyone who wanted to question the war-on-terror (which may possibly NOT have been as great as it seemed) was pushed aside with the phrase “You’re either with us or against us in the fight against terror”. Questioning the government in power meant you were a terrorist. Well, Justin at least the worst you are being called is ‘not an Obama lover’.
Comment by andbears — 11/6/2008 @ 4:29 pm
It’s not really necessary to defend 10,000 jubilant participants in Tuesday night’s celebrations from the comments (I’d call them accurate observations) made by a couple campus conservatives. I think you are just proving the point that Obamania may not be great for our country. Absolutely we all agree (I mean we call ourselves Patriots, for crying out loud) that there has been more enthusiasm for American politics since Obama came to scene. I congratulate him and his campaign for that, and agree it has helped serve a greater purpose–urging people, particularly young Americans, to take a vested interest in this country.
However, I think there have been too many instances of “Obamania” to dismiss criticism conservatives may have of drunken students climbing street lights, library buildings, spray-painting sidewalks, shutting down streets. (I think it begs the question: Had Obama lost, might we have seen even more animated mobs flipping over cars, lighting things on fire, destroying property, generally causing havoc?) The point is simple, and liberals would be even more outraged than conservatives are now were conservatives winning the presidency, Congress, and state elections across the country and celebrated by taking over city streets, university campuses, public libraries.
Comment by Spencer Doyle — 11/6/2008 @ 5:47 pm
It was a momentous night, and I’m deeply sorry if you were slightly inconvenienced because thousands of students came together in jubilation to peacefully celebrate American democracy.
Comment by yuri — 11/6/2008 @ 6:06 pm
There are just so many problems with the last paragraph. Let’s begin.
“too many instances of “Obamania” to dismiss criticism conservatives may have of drunken students climbing street lights, library buildings, spray-painting sidewalks, shutting down streets.”
When, in Berkeley, has this occurred outside of last night? And where is the California Patriot’s coverage and criticism of it when the same behavior occurs after football games?
“I think it begs the question: Had Obama lost, might we have seen even more animated mobs flipping over cars, lighting things on fire, destroying property, generally causing havoc?”
We don’t need to play around with the hypothetical. We know what happened following the elections in 2000 and 2004: no damage, no destruction. Sure, most democrats are more enthused about Obama than they were about Kerry, but I’d say we also dislike Bush a lot more than we dislike McCain. And it takes a really big man to slam students for some hypothetical action they might have done if things had gone differently. This is just a horrible argument: if something had happened which didn’t happen, then those people might have done this which would have been worse than what we did.
“celebrated by taking over city streets, university campuses, public libraries.”
Using language like “taking over” implies a dangerous mob or hostage situation. It wasn’t. No damage was done, outside of 1 or 2 people spray painting a sidewalk. Let’s call it what it actually was: a celebration by thousands of people of a momentous occasion in American history. If you guys can’t deal with that because your guy lost, then you are being shortsighted. And if your idea of celebrating is silently holding a sign in a non-public place, then I do not want to be near you when Cal finally clinches a Rose Bowl berth. You guys can stand there quietly and appreciate the moment, urging silence and perhaps a respectful handshake from your fellow Cal fans, but when something great happens, for Cal or for our country, for instance, it’s ok to cheer and smile.
Comment by Will — 11/6/2008 @ 6:47 pm
Here’s a really interesting Wall Street Journal op-ed that was written before he was elected that talked about Obama and his mass appeal that touched on some of the points you hit.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122533157015082889.html
Comment by Greg S — 11/6/2008 @ 6:52 pm
That’s way too simplistic. I am a pretty devoted Obama supported. I donated time and money to his campaign. But I, like so many of my friends, co-workers, family, and colleagues, hold no illusions of the task at hand being easy. It’s going to be incredibly difficult to repair the incredible amount of damage that’s been done to this country, and President Elect Obama will have to be damn good in order to make even modest improvements. But that does not dampen my mood - I am buoyed not so much by his policy goals but by the fact that we finally, finally have an intelligent, measured, rational, and competent person in the white house. That, I believe, will make a significant difference.
And as for crowds and their danger, I would hold that certain republican politicians using language like “terrorist” and “socialist” in speeches at their rallies does a lot more to incite fear and danger (as evidence by the countless times people at said rallies would yell things like “terrorist” “muslim” “kill him”, etc.) than Obama ever did. A perfect example is Tuesday night: nobody had vengeance on their mind, nobody shouted about McCain being a fascist or a racist. All you had were happy people celebrating together. We’ve come a long way.
Comment by Will — 11/6/2008 @ 7:10 pm
““terrorist” and “socialist” in speeches at their rallies does a lot more to incite fear and danger ” — Will — 11/6/2008 @ 7:10 pm
To Al Qaeda, Wine, Beer, strip-clubs, playboy incite fear and danger — I demand u as citizen-moral-cancer to take these words out of your vocabulary –now.
Also democracy, we as Al Qaerdas hate this term it brings fear and danger, and is hateful. U tell your leader Obama to take that crap out of your mouths. The Democratic Party needs to change it name to serve that Al Qaeda now.
Comment by udiumb — 11/7/2008 @ 12:01 am
It was great seeing so many people out celebrating change!!! Finally!
It’s not so great to have a cult following for the President.
The celebrating was kind of weird in my opinion. Those damn car horns throughout the night and the hootin and hollerin was annoying…I’m not being a sour puss, but really? Marching around in the streets?
Had people celebrated in such a way for McCain, I’m sure Republicans would be criticized just as much (if not more).
When people get excited for a Democratic candidate, it’s a great thing. It’s new, it’s fresh, it’s good for the country. Republicans get excited for a candidate, and it’s old, it’s evil, it’s bad and fearful for the country…I’m glad here at Berkeley the students got excited…but spur of the moment reactions to Obama like the one on election night are kind of scary…what next?
Comment by Give Me Liberty, Or Give me Death — 11/7/2008 @ 1:48 am
Personally, I wasn’t really offended by Tuesday night’s happenings. I missed it all, but when I later found out how huge a deal it was on campus, I wished I could have been there.
Please don’t misinterpret what I’m saying. It gets annoying. All I am trying to get across is the idea that mobs of any sort–hostile, peaceful, in-control, out-of-control–ought to be challenged. Liberals, it seems, only take opposition to this concept when conservatives are the ones rallying. As one of the previous posts indicates, to liberals it is unacceptable when conservatives gather and listen to Sarah Palin mention Obama’s working relationships with terrorists, and use the term “Muslim terrorists” to refer to those who, in the name of Allah, flew planes into the World Trade Center. Also to be derided, because liberals say so: The now well-known “fact” that someone yelled “kill him” at the mention of Barack Obama, even though no investigation has been able to substantiate the single claim that that ever happened.
Moreover, calling Obama a socialist isn’t inciting near as much hatred or violence as that directed at John McCain, Sarah Palin, and conservatives in general. It’s not even slanderous when it happens to be a more or less accurate description based on the policies he’s proposed.
If “taking over” is too much, then perhaps I could go with “invading,” “flooding,” “filling,” or “occupying” instead. (Although I don’t think “taking over” connotes anything more dangerous than a group of 10,000 college-aged Obama fans emptying bars, filling up streets, libraries, Sproul and the Campanile.) Even though Obama won, there were still students crying, screaming, and climbing street signs, lampposts, buildings and various other campus structures. There was even the one or two Obamaniacs with cans of spray paint defacing city property.
Ask yourself: Is it too intolerant and hypocritical for a handful of students to take issue with the blocking of traffic caused by Obama supporters? The answer I assume depends on whether you were blocking the traffic that night or just driving home.
Comment by Spencer Doyle — 11/7/2008 @ 2:50 am
“All I am trying to get across is the idea that mobs of any sort–hostile, peaceful, in-control, out-of-control–ought to be challenged”-Spencer
I agree.
Sure, the celebration was important. It was a way to express happiness. However, does a president becoming elected justify disregarding laws? When a president is elected and a mob forms, does this not raise any sort of suspicion?
I don’t know…focusing too much on the mob misses the point. I guess the point is that the president has become a cult figure, there is a sort of role reversal in the image of the President, his popularity seems to be blinding people of his policies which are leaning far to the left, and that there is a culture being created that makes one feel ashamed of being Republican. This, I think, is a problem.
The US is not a one party system. And yet it seems to be becoming one…Democrats are demonizing republicans.
Comment by "Give me liberty, or give me death" — 11/7/2008 @ 11:55 pm
Give me Liberty….
“Democrats are demonizing republicans” - seriously? Where in the hell have you been for the past 8 years? Since at least 2001, Republicans have assured us and the nation that if we DARE elect Democrats, we may be attacked by terrorists. We might see mushroom clouds everywhere. Some have “wondered” whether Obama was the anti-Christ. They called him a terrorist. For years, the basic Rovian playbook was too demonize the Democrats and establish a “permanent conservative majority” in America. That was his out and out stated goal. So you’ll excuse me if your fears of Democrats “demonizing” the Republicans makes me laugh. There’s only so much hypocrisy one can take, after all.
It’s as if you and those who argue like you have ignored the hero-worshipping that surrounded Bush for some time. I don’t think it would be unheard of to have seen a Cal Republican with Bush on his t-shirt. In any case, I’m sure everyone here who has derided the “cult” surrounding Obama has done the exact same for the Palin’s celebrity following as well.
Comment by archangel37 — 11/8/2008 @ 2:38 am
Your attempt at equivalence is simply factually false. Shirts celebrating Bush are indeed unheard of among Cal Republicans.
Comment by Justin! — 11/8/2008 @ 3:06 am
Justin,
So you’re saying that not a single Cal Republican has worn a shirt with Bush’s face on since 2000? How long have you been at Cal exactly?
More importantly, have you not read/seen the cult-like following that surrounds Palin? Have you likewise argued that is unhealthy somewhere? So far, I haven’t been able to find such an article or post. But maybe you can lead me to it.
Comment by archangel37 — 11/8/2008 @ 4:00 pm
Oh, and before I forget, I want to note, with some irony, that there is an ad on this page attempting to sell McCain shirts. With McCain’s face on them.
Irony is a wonderful thing.
Comment by archangel37 — 11/8/2008 @ 4:04 pm
I still have yet to see such a shirt. Perhaps, you’re referring to the ones with supportive captions like “Fuck Bush,” “Bush Sucks,” “Terrorist-in-Chief,” “Impeach Now,” et al. Those actually do exist.
Imagine walking around with “Fuck Obama,” “Obama Sucks,” “Obama Is Not My President” shirts. Then wonder who the real “threat to democracy” is.
Comment by Spencer Doyle — 11/8/2008 @ 4:21 pm
Is your view that the presence of a single shirt at any time since 2000 with Bush on it would validate your point? If so, it’s a very flimsy point. But I see you’ve moved on already. Regardless, this election season, I haven’t seen a shirt worn by Cal Republicans with McCain’s face on it, either.
Comment by Justin! — 11/8/2008 @ 4:34 pm
Your suggestion is that the “cult-like” following surrounding Obama, as evidenced by photos of him on their t-shirts, is a mildly dangerous thing. Or at least, a dangerous trend in how we view the presidency.
I pointed out a couple of things: 1) I’ve seen Plenty (indeed, more than one) Cal Republican wear a Bush t-shirt. 2) I remember the cheerleading and hero-worship that surrounded him, especially post 9/11 and just after the Iraq war. 3) I do Not remember Ever hearing from the California Patriot that these were dangerous signs. 4) Since Palin’s introduction, her “celebrity status” rivaled that of Obama’s - drawing tens of thousands who chanted “Sarah, Sarah!” - I also don’t remember reading an article from the Pat on how this was dangerous or wrong. 5) I pointed out the irony of having ads selling McCain t-shirts with his face on them on the Same Page as this blog post.
It’s partly about the Patriot’s (or this blogger’s) hypocrisy - no outcry when people felt this way about Republicans - and party about the sheer irrelevance of the larger point. The author touches on important points (the positives that have come along with Obama’s popularity), but then brushes them off without much though. More importantly, his “fear for the land of the free” comes across as quite hollow, considering Bush and “unitary executive theory” has done more to consolidate power within one branch than any president since FDR or Lincoln. Indeed, Bush’s Administration penned memos outlining the “extra authority” a wartime president allegedly had - that supposedly authorized warrantless wiretapping, avoiding the Geneva Conventions, instituting torture, or using presidential signing statements at a rate far ahead of past presidents.
So, again, you’ll excuse me if I don’t think much of the original point, or your attempt to back it up by saying you haven’t seen more than one Bush t-shirt on a Cal Pat. But, as currently stated, that the cult-like popularity Obama currently enjoys could potentially lead us closer and closer to a dictator because people wear his picture on a t-shirt seems plainly ridiculous when you consider all that Bush and Co. have done to make the Executive branch the most powerful branch in government.
Comment by archangel37 — 11/8/2008 @ 5:34 pm
Spencer
I’m not surprised you “still haven’t seen that shirt.” With Bush’s popularity at an all-time low, you shouldn’t be surprised either. However, things were not always so.
So, expression of free speech on shirts is a threat to democracy?
Oh yes, there are plenty of “Fuck Obama” shirts too:
http://shop.cafepress.com/design/28151222
See, now you won’t have to imagine.
But if that’s not real enough, how about all the Obama signs coupled with Communist imagery?
Comment by archangel37 — 11/8/2008 @ 5:44 pm
Funny, I remember the 9/11 “hero-worship,” as you say, and it wasn’t directed towards Bush, aside from appreciation of the things he did. I don’t recall “Bush” itself being thought of as a political statement. No one held enormous signs with pictures of Bush on them on Sproul plaza as if doing so made a point. And no, I don’t remember Bush t-shirts, but it was a long time ago, so maybe I just missed those.
If you’re personally calling the current staff of the California Patriot hypocrites for not criticizing behavior seven years ago that they never saw on the Patriot blog that didn’t exist, I honestly don’t know what to say.
You can try to “win the debate” here with things you feel are parallel, if you like, but nobody really cares. Everyone knows what is meant by the “cult” of Obama, and how we never saw it for McCain, Bush, Kerry, or Gore.
And no, mere support does not constitute a cult. Yes, people liked Sarah Palin. Few saw her arrival onto the scene as a heavenly intervention.
Comment by Justin! — 11/8/2008 @ 6:36 pm
Ah, you don’t remember the “Bush can do no wrong” for months after, indeed, years after 9/11. The constant “Support your president - to do anything else would be unpatriotic.” But there were plenty of Bush t-shirts.
What I’m referring to is a long history of Cal Pat hypocrisy - the call for “bi-partisanship” and concern for demonization by the Democrats - when they ran issues calling liberals pussies. One didn’t read issues back then worrying about the growing “cult” surrounding Bush. Just as now, one does not read issues/articles concerning the cult surrounding Palin. It’s unfortunate to note that the Cal Pat’s hypocrisy spans more than 7 years.
There are obvious reasons for why we haven’t seen the “cult” around Kerry, McCain, or Gore - you don’t really not understand why that is, do you? And why we did seem them around Palin and to a lesser extent, Bush.
“People liked Sarah Palin” - it went beyond mere “liking,” as you well should know. Pundits and blogs hailed her coming - the savior of the McCain campaign. She was going to “save the Republican party from Destruction.” From Restate to National Review to Op Ed pages, she was hailed as the saviour of McCain and Conservatism. People chanted her named, they cried when they heard her speak, they wore shirts with her picture on them. The “base” loved her, loves her to this day.
But, again, I’ll love to read that article as soon as you Cal Pats get to it.
Comment by archangel37 — 11/8/2008 @ 7:49 pm
I’m sorry, but the reality you inhabit seems dramatically different than mine.
They expected support for the president because he was the president, not because he was Bush. Those who only decide the wave flags when their guy is in power have a very different view. Patriotism was questioned not because folks opposed Bush but because they seemed to be cheering for America’s enemies, hoping they’d cause harm to the party in power.
Who cried for Palin? Being the seen as saviour of the campaign/conservativism is a political assessment. Being seen as the saviour of the human race/planet is a religious one. Like I said, your attempts at parallels move no one.
Comment by Justin! — 11/8/2008 @ 7:59 pm
archangel37, Obama in his own memoirs states that he favored his marxist professors. What more proof do you need, unless you are not telling about the crack-down job by his troops to shut down Joe the plumber for asking about a communist system of rob peter to pay paul.
And the fact that Obama champions FDR’s military spread democracy and not the Bush doctrine, indicated that he called the Bush supporters terrorists . This comes from his former reverend who see both dems and repubs as conducting terrorism in US history. Obama ran a Rovian campaign. It was the most hateful thing in the US history of all general elections. Now he wants forgiveness and peace. Sure dude.
Berkeley is intolorant of right-wing ideology. Obama is everywhere and there is no bush that I ever say on anyone at this school. Bush supporters lived in fear.
Comment by wtfdude — 11/8/2008 @ 8:02 pm
Wtfdude
Show me the quotation.
2) “rob peter to pay paul” - that’s what you call rolling back Bush’s tax cuts for those who make over $250,000 to Clinton-era levels? That’s Marxism to you? Crikey - what MUST you think about the Republicans/Bush buying preferred stock in Banks! But if you prefer to take your economic advice from “joe the plumber” aka Sam the unlicensed plumber and tax dodger who will actually get a tax cut under Obama’s plan - by all means. I’ll stick to award winning economists.
3) So…Obama champions FDR’s “military spread democracy”….he doesn’t champion the Bush Doctrine….ergo, he’s called “the Bush supporters terrorists.” That makes sense to you? Really?
4) Obama ran a Rovian campaign? The most hateful thing in the US history of all general elections?
5) “There is no bush that [you] ever say on anyone at this school. Bush supporters lived in fear.”
Right. First, I don’t actually believe you go to Berkeley. And if you do, wtf happened to their acceptance standards!?!?
Second, while I’m sure the twilight zone in which you call reality is a fascinating one, it is a wee far from reality. So much so that I’m not sure it’s actually worthwhile to prove you wrong. Indeed, how can you prove someone wrong when they are incapable of perceiving reality?
Yes, reality has a liberal bias. Damn.
Comment by archangel37 — 11/8/2008 @ 8:17 pm
Shall we get into a philosophical discussion of how one determines if his own perceptions of reality are correct, as opposed to someone else’s? Instead of accepting that we see things differently, you blindly declare the other party blind, creating an opportunity to declare yourself victorious in your own perceptions despite not changing a single thing.
Why even bother stopping by? As an anonymous commenter, you have no credibility on which to base a claim of “I’m right, trust me!”
Comment by Justin! — 11/8/2008 @ 8:35 pm
Justin,
I remember the campus quite well during those times of post 9/11 - even there, Bush had astonishing support. That, coupled with his sky high approval ratings, gave him wide-based support, even among Democrats and Independents. It lasted for months, if not a years, before he began to use up that goodwill. And while I’m sure you could find some nut in Berkeley who wanted us to lose in Afghanistan or thought we deserved to be attacked, the vast majority of people wanted us to win and thought the 9/11 attacks were atrocious. Certainly in my group of liberal friends, no one ever wished the enemies of America well so that they could bring down the Republican party.
What one could see on TV and in the media and on the radio, however, were Republican pundits and politicians calling Democrats terrorists or terrorist sympathizers. They would question the patriotism of anyone who didn’t support the war or Bush’s expansion of the executive branch. They told anyone who voted for Democrats that they were putting the country in danger of another terrorist attack.
“Tracy, who had supported Mitt Romney in the primary, said that she cried the day of Palin’s acceptance speech.” - and “Lee had a phrase for the excitement that Palin invokes in conservatives, exemplified by the throngs trying to shake Palin’s hand, take her photo or have her autograph their cowboy hats or baseball caps, just behind him: “I refer to it as Palin pandemonium,” he said.” http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2008/09/14/palin/
There’s a large difference between a cold hearted political assessment of who you think can and cannot save a campaign or a party. Moreover, I don’t see many rational people who honestly think Obama is Jesus Christ reincarnate. You do see lots of irrational people who think he might be the anti-christ, however.
Palin’s initial strength for McCain was that she was the right’s Obama - she was a fresh, young face, with adoring fans. Certainly you’ve heard at least ONE story or read ONE article where her supporters leave after she’s done speaking and before McCain gets up. They went there for her, not because of her political beliefs, of which people barely knew, but because of her - gasp - personality.
Comment by archangel37 — 11/8/2008 @ 8:52 pm
Oh Justin, do relax a little, yeah?
The “living in another reality” comment was not directed at you, but at your fellow conservative, WTFDude - as stated in the first line. I’m more than willing to understand and agree that we can see things differently - that’s the point of having discussions, the ability to hash out differences. But when I read things/posts like WTF’s, I can only help but wonder what world they live in.
This personal victimization that you feel is certainly not my creating - anonymous commenting or otherwise. Nor do I present a “I’m right, trust me,” because you have no reason to just trust me. As I have no reason to just trust you. Or WTFDude. We are here to have a discussion, ideally, one backed by facts and evidence instead of platitudes, cliches, and extremist talking points.
But, if you can agree with this statement: “And the fact that Obama champions FDR’s military spread democracy and not the Bush doctrine, indicated that he called the Bush supporters terrorists,” - well then, we’re going to have some issues have a decent discussion.
Comment by archangel37 — 11/8/2008 @ 8:58 pm
I, too, was here for 9/11, and remember very well the candlelight vigil that night. “some nut in Berkeley who… thought we deserved to be attacked” described half the speakers. The other half just had generic statements of sadness, and one person got up there to express anger towards the people who did this. He was booed off the steps, and the microphone was cut. Past leaders of SJP have advocated the death of American troops. Bush having “astonishing support” is so far from the truth I don’t even know where to begin. Attacking Afghanistan had what may be considered “astonishing support,” considering the location (though I’d question even that), but to cast it as some kind of personal love for Bush is not correct.
Comment by Justin! — 11/8/2008 @ 9:15 pm
That’s the point, isn’t it, Justin? You just rattled off some number of people who claimed to want to do the US harm - at one of the most liberal universities in the nation - and while I obviously disagree that half of the speakers thought we deserved it, I can agree with you that the tone took an unfortunately partisan tone. It was one reason I left early - See, we can agree on something, no?
Nonetheless, I don’t confuse the support for the war in Afghanistan with personal love for Bush - and you shouldn’t suggest that I am. What I do suggest is that after those days and leading into the early days of the war in Iraq and 2004 election, Cal Republicans often advanced the cult of personality that surrounded Bush - the cowboy, the hero flying in to save the day - to announce “Mission Accomplished.”
More importantly, I have still yet to read a similar article about Sarah Palin denouncing the cult of personality that continues to surround her. Moreover, I definitely don’t remember reading articles that denounced the Real attempts Bush was undertaking seize more power within the Executive branch. I find it mildly humorous that we are just now staring to see articles warning of too much power in one man or one party - as if that wasn’t exactly what Bush and Rovian Republicans were trying to do for years.
Comment by archangel37 — 11/8/2008 @ 9:39 pm
Barack Hussein Obama ( i.e. Barry) completed the most vicious, vitriolic, divisive campaign of all time in USA history. However, he did not need too. John McCain is a moderate and polls showed at least by the beginning of September, Obama had the presidency wrapped up — but Obama said the campaign was going to be more vicious. It was on the Democrat side. Obama continually smeared every single republican alive. His hateful and continuous divisive rhetoric on Bush and the republicans as failures who supported imperialism (( Iraq, the spreading of democracy) equated to terrorists, meaning all republicans or supporters of Bush are terrorists) over non-engagement of this world, was in fact calling each citizen associated with the GOP “terrorists.” That never happened prior to him. He is a Marxist and capitalism is always destructive to some individual somewhere, he intends. Either Obama goes isolationist, or Marxist. He promised heaven on Earth. His campaign ran him as the messiah. He has about 60+ days to deliver. He said he will change America immediately. In which he has a new website offering a Marxist citizen security force to put down anyone that dares to oppose his plans of ‘change.’ To him, capitalism is imperialism, except for F.D.R’s spreading of democracy program ( Same program, identically, none-the-least) — which curiously is deemed not terrorism and is in contentions to Rev. Jeremiah Wright, Jr, II, in which Obama denounced him for this view as one of the main points of contention to his former church.
There was nothing hateful about calling him socialist. He is and admits it in his book on his life. But the demOcrats believe his lies on the campaign trail. After calling the entire GOP terrorists, he wants them to come to his side. No-Way, never. Somethings are not forgivable!
Comment by wtfdude — 11/8/2008 @ 10:24 pm
WTFDude
First, I’d be Really interested to see how many of your conservative fellows would agree with what you’re saying. Any takers?
“His campaign ran him as the messiah. He has about 60+ days to deliver.” - (He has to deliver Before he is president?)
1) Obama’s campaign was the most “vicious, vitriolic, divisive campaign of all time in USA history” - (Previous campaigns have accused their opponents of fathering illegitimate black children)
2) John McCain is a moderate and polls showed at least by the beginning of September, Obama had the presidency wrapped up - (In the beginning of September, polls began to show McCain was overtaking Obama)
3) “but Obama said the campaign was going to be more vicious.” - (He said this where?)
4) “Obama continually smeared every single republican alive.” - (Especially Colin Powell, Dick Luger, and Chuck Hagel, right?)
5) “His hateful and continuous divisive rhetoric on Bush and the republicans as failures who supported imperialism (( Iraq, the spreading of democracy) equated to terrorists, meaning all republicans or supporters of Bush are terrorists) over non-engagement of this world, was in fact calling each citizen associated with the GOP “terrorists.” - (What???)
6) “He is a Marxist and capitalism is always destructive to some individual somewhere, he intends.” - (Your proof?)
7) “He promised heaven on Earth.” - (When?)
9) “To him, capitalism is imperialism, except for F.D.R’s spreading of democracy program ( Same program, identically, none-the-least) — which curiously is deemed not terrorism and is in contentions to Rev. Jeremiah Wright, Jr, II, in which Obama denounced him for this view as one of the main points of contention to his former church.” - (What? Again? What?)
10) “He is and admits it in his book on his life. ” - (Please do provide the quotation)
11) “After calling the entire GOP terrorists, he wants them to come to his side. No-Way, never.” - - (Quotation?)
Again, I simply cannot believe that you actually go to Berkeley. It worries me if you do.
Comment by archangel37 — 11/8/2008 @ 10:40 pm
archangel37,
In order to even attempt to approach an argument with me, you will need to complete this set of source reading.
Obama Cornel Thesis: His professors said it was immature. Obama threw it out and he moved on to other things. Do you know what it was on? Then read Bill Clinton’s similar Senior Thesis to compare.
Michelle’s Princeton Thesis: Theme, ‘Ours souls need correcting. ‘
All four appearances of Rev. Jeremiah Wright, Jr. II’s media appearances after the Obama/ Wright controversy broke (March-April, 08). There is much world and US history there, you will need to study that outside of these texts.
You will need to know Chinese, European, Middle Eastern and American history at a more in-depth level than undergraduate at a prestigious university to gasp Obama and Wrights bickering arguments. You will have to fulfill all categories of economic, political, and social function s in each world society or you will be deficient as you recompose yourself at this time. Rev. Write gets his prime source documents from Chicago University, a higher ranked University than U.C.B.
What he says, outside of the AIDs claim, is fully justifiable. You will note Obama’s contention to many of Wright’s justifications.
Obama’s Speech on Racism, and the press conference where he officially denounced his former reverend and cut ties with his 20 – year old relationship to a Southside Chicago Black Liberation Church. Again, you will need to know intimately world history at a more in-depth level that top-secret documents.
You will have to familiarize yourself with all the books Obama claims he had allegedly written.
You will need to read all of Obama’s Chicago University, Law exams for his students. You need to study the arguments: Why was he against Homosexual marriage, and why did he want to have his students argue in law about this? That is one of the many topics, and it reveals his character make-up quite well.
You will need to read Chicago journals looking for photos and book reviews by Obama who reviews William Ayers book. Yes, they are there contrary to Obama refutation that he knew W. Ayers on national TV, during one of the debates.
You will need to read all of New York Times online publications of how they insertions into the campaign, not citing sources other than anonymous blog attacks upon Palin, McCain and Bush.
I cannot provide citing sources for all of these which would take considerable time. I care less that you see it as an excuse. I’m not here to address insufficient knowledge. I own scans of many of these school documents. You can get them from browsing the Internet, and study them at your leisure. This is because I chose to make my vote and educated process. I voted upon character and not on color. I also blog on the NYTimes website, where they take my posts and write upon them in print; they seems to see these issues as relevant and politically damaging for Obama’s future. They are interested in them. I have relevant arguments. That is why they address them – it is damage control they seek to react. You see they know what I give is factually based. You do not. You have no sufficient knowledge. They have all the sources at their command. You do not. You have solon dot com, and other partisan blog cites. These are deficient sources. There is no reason to argue with some here that is deficient in knowledge and uses ad homonym attacks to justify their ignorance. Yes, my department intends I’m one of their better students. Maybe I care about doing the correct research and not using emotional passion to justify my claims – as so many students here seem to embrace. I ended up no t joining BCR a few years ago; because many claimed they were Libertarians. This did not represent the base of conservatives. I care less of what they think of my posts. And I really care less of what you think – because I have never seen your write anything that can be compared to a thinking process. If I chose to post here I chose to post for my pleasure and not yours.
Comment by WTFDude — 11/9/2008 @ 2:40 pm
WTFDude
I’m quite certain that you “really care less of what [I] think” - but my goal was never to get you to care about what I think. Or to suggest that you post here at my pleasure. That’s plainly ridiculous, but I’m sure it was a fun straw man to knock down.
I’m sure BCR has missed your intellectual presence every single day.
If you did care about doing the “correct research” and not using “emotional passion” to justify your claims, then you’re doing quite a poor job thus far. Such as stating that Obama “promised heaven on earth.” What’s the correct research for that claim? Where’s the evidence?
“Yes, my department intends I’m one of their better students.” - Your department intends that you’re one of their better students? Obviously I know what you meant, but the fact that you couldn’t write what you really meant suggests to me that you’re not even a student, let alone a UCB department’s better student.
Ah, the classic argument - “I don’t have time to cite my sources for my claims - it’s not my fault you’re ignorant!” Well, good luck with line of argument in research papers. But, you say you blog for the NY Times - are you really Bill Kristol? I sure hope not - he’s a much better writer than you are. In any case, regarding your factual arguments that the NY Times considers relevant, I would love to see the evidence. The facts. The support for your claims. Certainly you can provide quotations for some of the things you’ve claimed. Indeed, all the time you spent “replying” to my previous post could have been spent providing a single quotation or citation to the works you use as evidence. Alas, like the famed Michelle Obama “whitey” tapes, I think “soon, very soon you’ll see the evidence” is likely the best we’ll get from you.
I understand that you think quite highly of yourself - that you have amassed a small library of information pertaining to the Obamas and their character flaws. Indeed, this might be true. And it might be true that I can’t have as complete an understanding of Obama as you claim to have, sans all these works. But that’s the beauty of this blog post - you’re the one making the ridiculous claims. You’re the one responsible for backing those claims. Instead, we get a litany of excuses and book lists and reasons why your intellectual firepower puts you above us mere mortals. Fine, fine, great, you’re a research genius. And maybe English is your second-language, so that your horrendous writing ability is excused. But even all that being true, there is no excuse for being unable or unwilling to back up your claims. Still, your every new post is thoroughly enjoyable, from a purely comical standpoint. I can’t wait for the next one.
Comment by archangel37 — 11/9/2008 @ 5:17 pm
Ways to fail in a debate/argument
1) Tell the other person to do a lot of reading
2) Tell the other person you don’t have time to back up outrageous claims
3) Boast your secretive abilities
4) Call the other person too intellectually inept to debate the issues with you
5) Not respond to anything asked
Comment by yuri — 11/9/2008 @ 5:31 pm
archangel37………
“Democrats are demonizing republicans” - seriously?
Yes, I’m being serious. And yes, I agree with you. Republicans also rip apart liberals. However, there is a difference here on campus, is what I’m trying to get at. It honestly seems, now this is my humble opinion here, that to be open about being Republican on campus is “uncool,” or well, stupid. I immediately get written off as a bigot, a Christian, or generally uninformed. On the other hand, I respect liberals points of view, most Republicans here on campus that I know will sit and actually attempt to understand the opposite point of view, and value that fact that we can think differently. Instead, I feel like another mind set is forced upon me constantly because liberalism is the only way to go in America…alright but that’s enough of my complaining
I did choose to go to Cal knowing full well it was overwhelmingly liberal. But I hope you see my point…as I see yours.
“It’s as if you and those who argue like you have ignored the hero-worshipping that surrounded Bush for some time.”
No actually…here’s another instance of a liberal making an assumption about me. As a good Republican who favors small government and values states’ rights, I consider it my American duty to always be critical of the government, and president, even if I do support him and he is part of my party. I know other Republicans as well who feel the same way. I think Bush could have done a way better job than he actually did, but I still stood by him as the President of my country despite my criticisms…just as I will support Obama for the sake of my country despite my qualms with his policies.
“I don’t think it would be unheard of to have seen a Cal Republican with Bush on his t-shirt. In any case, I’m sure everyone here who has derided the “cult” surrounding Obama has done the exact same for the Palin’s celebrity following as well.”
Of course! I also think it’s stupid to see Reagan on a t-shirt. He was an amazing president, but come on now…
Again, I think the article was more about the way a cult has surrounded Obama, the change in how the public perceives the President, how college campuses perpetuate this sort of cult following, and less about the actual t-shirt. Maybe cult is a word that doesn’t sit too well with people…but to not admit that this is what it seems like would be kind of stupid. Open your eyes and ears a little and it would be much clearer.
Comment by Give Me Liberty, Or Give me Death — 11/9/2008 @ 8:56 pm
Give Me Liberty,
Ah, you meant the environment on campus. I can completely agree that there are plenty of groups on campus that are hostile to Republican or conservative thought - quite stupidly, I might add. As an anecdote, I knew a girl who lived in my unit who refused to admit her personal political beliefs almost the entire year because she feared being made fun of - top that off with the usual social pressures of trying to fit in as a freshman, and it’s no wonder some conservatives can feel extra stress. That said, there were plenty of Republicans on my floor who had no qualms expressing their beliefs - we always had spirited discussions. Ironically, some of my more liberal friends had the most heated arguments with members of BAMN. So yes, believe me, I more than see your point. =)
I don’t mean to pin point your alleged hero-worship - indeed, how in the hell could I having never met you! Nonetheless, having read issues of the Cal Pat for the past 7 years, it was Very Difficult to find a critical article on Bush that didn’t start out with “Bush was being Too Liberal…” - and certainly no articles worrying about the amount of power he was amassing in the executive branch. Which, as I would like to restate, in no way reflects on your individual views.
I’m not blind to the adoration that has surrounded Obama since his nomination - quite the opposite. But I think you can’t see the forest for the trees, so to speak - to complain about the cult following, the changes in public perception in part perpetuated by college campuses is to point out what, exactly? That in and of itself, it is bad to have people adore Obama that much? I’m not so sure - what I would agree is potentially bad is if that adoration turns to blind allegiance for anything and everything he does, including attempts to solidify even more power within the executive branch than Bush attempted.
More importantly, as I have pointed out before, this article misses two key points: 1) The similar cult of personality surrounding Palin; and 2) The Very Real consequences of blind allegiance given to Bush for so long. I think, for too long, people have ignored the increasing concentration of power within the executive branch - and now, to point out these “new found fears” as a Democrat takes office, smacks of hypocrisy. That, to me, seems a much more important and forgotten point in this whole discussion of whether people adore Obama too much.
Comment by archangel37 — 11/10/2008 @ 1:36 am
“I’m not so sure - what I would agree is potentially bad is if that adoration turns to blind allegiance for anything and everything he does, including attempts to solidify even more power within the executive branch than Bush attempted.”
I agree…that is a real worry.
And yes, Palin is adored a lot as well…but we’ll see what happens in the future to the stardom of both politicians…hopefully it’s positive
Comment by Give Me Liberty, Or Give me Death — 11/10/2008 @ 11:33 pm