The Fog Machine
Feb 9th, 2008 at 11:35 am by Susie
If I can speak in astrological terms for a moment, the Obama campaign is overly Neptunian for my taste. Neptune, while the planet of our higher nature and transcendence, is also the planet of drug abuse and foggy thinking. In its extreme form, it can be fanaticism motivated by the need to “better” the world. We all need Neptune but we also need to keep it in balance.
That’s what I thought of after reading this piece on Obama in the Columbia Journalism Review:
I imagined, seeing him speak in person for the first time, that I would hear more of a discussion of policy than I’ve heard in the coverage of his campaign. I was sure that the sound bites that his stump speech produced about unity and change may pepper his talk, but could not possibly be the sum total of his message. But, basically, they were. There was very little sense that he was standing in North Charleston talking to a specific community of people. His transcendent talk was just that, transcendent. It’s not that this didn’t have a strong effect on the people who had waited to see him. It did. But there was something slightly gimmicky about his presentation. In my notebook, I wrote twice, “How will he make change?”
I looked around me, though, as I was at once emotionally stimulated and intellectually underwhelmed, and saw the press corps, yawning, checking e-mail, and one older, bespectacled man who looked like he was working on a chapter of his book. (What would you do if you had to listen to the same anecdotes and promises hundreds of times?) It occurred to me that Obama’s message was easy to encapsulate, could be boiled down to a very distinct nut graph. And his success, at least in the press, seemed to me very much the result of this convergence of time-pressed journalists’ need to tell a succinct story and Obama’s ability to deliver it. It seemed a perfect marriage. And even if many of the reporters look bored, pale, and poorly fed, he was making their job easy.
It’s all about the marketing.
So vote for Nader if Obama is “Neptunian.”
Is “neptunian” some kind of new boomer racist code word?
I too have noticed the lack of specifics. I really supported an Obama candidacy. I wrote about it long before Obama decided to enter the race - promoting the man. Begging him to take the chance. I have since changed my mind.
Obama seems to promote divisiveness. The above comment is a prime example. You are being insulted - both for your presumed age, and for a racial bias anyone who’s bothered to read your work knows is total bullshit. But the Obama supporter could care less. He or she jumps into reactionary mode – attack, attack, attack - belittle, belittle, belittle. All based upon an erroneous assumption.
This is what usually happens on any progressive blog these days. Ask ‘where’s the beef’ - and you get attacked and insulted. I used to wish Obama acolytes would realize they were doing their candidate a disservice by trashing anyone who asks such questions. I now question if all this isn’t exactly as Obama wishes. Pitting people against one other is an excellent camouflage. You don’t have to explain yourself if anytime someone asks, you question their motives.
I hope I’m wrong – but the tenor of his followers disturbs me greatly. They behave way too much like Bush supporters – the same triggers, the same language, the same prejudices. It’s disappointing. I had such high hopes.
Please take a look at the bills authored by Obama in his short tenure in the Senate and compare them to the Clinton bills in her much longer tenure; Then let’s have that substance discussion.
Please take a look at the bills authored by Obama in his short tenure in the Senate and compare them to the Clinton bills in her much longer tenure; Then let’s have that substance discussion.
Could you please give us the Cliff notes verson?
I’m not up to speed on this at all.