Sara Robinson has figured it out, and I agree. Barack Obama is leading the Democratic race because he has tapped into the public’s general malaise; Hillary Clinton has not.
Or to put it another way, Obama has soul.
Watching Obama’s rallies is a bit like watching a revival meeting or a really good concert. Whether he comes by it naturally or through a lot of coaching, Obama knows how to draw his audience into his message and how to reflect their thoughts and fears back to them. He has a vision, and people can see that. It’s been a long time since any candidate has had a sincere vision for the future of the country.
Meanwhile, Clinton, who is by no means a rank political amateur, has lost her momentum. Blame it on her campaign staff, or on her own starchy, politics-as-usual presence, she has lost her connection with “The People.” Her campaign appearances seem contrived, less spontaneous than Obama’s. Kinda dull.
Does Obama’s gift with an audience make him a better candidate for president? No. We should not elect someone on the basis of a “cult of personality.” We need to look at the candidates’ platforms, their specific proposals. Obama has been dealing primarily with overarching general themes, while avoiding any real specifics. It’s an old political ploy: speak a lot, without really saying anything. That way, no one can nail you later for not meeting your promises.
Clinton is being more specific, but she’s lost the vision game. Whether she can suddenly recover enough to win the next few primaries is doubtful. Obama’s technique is not teachable. You either have it, or you don’t.
You said that Obama “has been dealing primarily with overarching general themes, while avoiding any real specifics”. Perhaps so in speeches; but I’ve found that his “Blueprint for Change”
http://www.barackobama.com/pdf/ObamaBlueprintForChange.pdf
is at least as detailed as anything I’ve heard from a presidential candidate.
You’re right, but how much of his audience has actually read it? Obama knows (perhaps he listened to Al Gore’s campaign speeches?) that too much detail leads to glazed eyes. I should know — I teach high school!
Wasn’t this something Obama did in his Senate bid? I mean, you can see it in his funding sources (vs. Mrs. Clinton’s). He is getting LOTS (and lots) of small donations. She is getting fewer-than-LOTS of maximum-sized donations. One speaks to empowering the people. The other speaks to empowering the usual suspects.
Yes, and Obama also sound like a new Jack Kennedy.