OBAMAMANIA EXPLAINED

The rising tide of the Obama campaign is undeniable. Supporters are so upbeat about his candidacy that they've been labeled fanatical like here and here. The campaign has even been called a cult.

There's a relatively simple explanation for this, and it has to do with leadership style, as gleaned from his past, and yes, his speeches.

I was once told something by a mentor of mine that I have adopted as one of the Essential Truths of Life: There are two types of leaders, "Bosses", and "Coaches". They exist in all fields, and I'm sure that you've experienced both -at least I hope so, but the truth is that the latter are few and far between.


Bosses

A boss is someone who leads toward their own ends. Those ends may or may not coincide with the goals of the company or the people below them. A boss never allows questioning, rather choosing a "do what I tell you because I tell you (or because that's why I pay you)" style. People work for a boss, but only because they have to, and they only put in as much time as they need to in order to get by. Employees don't really care about a boss -it's not that they necessarily hate him or her, it's just that they don't really feel that the boss cares for them or is at all interested in their situation so they're likewise disinterested in the boss.


Coaches

Contrast that with a coach. The term comes from the sports world, but doesn't just apply there. It is however best explained by sports analogy. In reality there are many sports teams who are coached by "bosses". Players will play for a boss, but only as much and as long as it advances them. But for a coach players will "walk over hot coals". They'll put in long hours and sacrifice their well being. Why? Because they know that the coach is only asking them to do something that in the aggregate or in the long run will benefit the whole team, not just the coach or the owners. They know the coach isn't requiring any level of sacrifice from any individual any more than any other or any more than the coach him or herself is giving. They know that the coach would never ask anything unreasonable or frivelous. That's not to say that the coach won't be hard-assed or tougher on some players than others, just that s/he'll not punish or criticize anyone who doesn't deserve it and won't do it except for the benefit of the team.

That kind of leadership inspires trust and when you trust someone you necessarily make yourself vulnerable, and that vulnerability naturally lends itself to an emotional outlet.

So to apply the above to Obama supporters: They (Ok, we) view him as a "coach". His background and past accomplishments indicate that he really does care for the state of the country and that he's willing to fight for principles and legislation that would benefit the whole country, not just his donors or constituents. It's in his words as well. When he speaks he says that it (in this case change for the better) won't be easy and will require sacrifice, but you don't get the feeling that he's not willing to sacrifice himself or to work as hard as he's asking others to do. For that matter, he's the only presidential candidate I've even heard of since JFK who's ever asked for any sacrifice from the American People for the common good. Usually those who talk about the common good are labeled communists (unless of course they're talking about defense). That by itself makes him unique.

The promise of that kind of leadership in a candidate for president is intoxicating. I don't know what an Obama presidency would actually be like, but if you want to know why people are so enthusiastic about his candidacy, that's why.

PLAGIARISM?

Well, she did it.

In the Texas debate tonight Hillary was actually conned into following the stupid script her handlers wrote and dropped the "change you can Xerox" lead balloon. She didn't even look comfortable saying it.

And now here it comes:



AND



So this plagiarism thing was an unbelieveably stupid exercise in attempted Rovian attack smearing that failed miserably and now lies coughing up blood in a heap on the floor.

How do you feel now Hills?

Interesting though that the very line she ripped from Edwards seems to some pundits to be an indication that she's ready to concede. I don't think so, but if she gets her ass whooped in Texas it'll be closer and if in both Texas and Ohio it's a certainty.

So the skinny is that she's making nice now strategically to either shore up a veep invite or to preserve her chances for 2012 or 2016. The veep thing seems more credible because she'd be challenging an incumbant Obama in 2012 and in 2016 she'll be 68 -young by political standards, but while sexism is fading, it's not gone, and she'll be (to paraphrase Goldie Hawn) well out of "District attorney" and well into "Driving Miss Daisy" by then.

Also I just don't see her "go[ing] gentl[y] into that good night" without some quid pro quo -it's just not her style.

So IMHO Obama won because it was his to lose and he held on without making any big mistakes.

ROVIAN ATTACK POLITICS 101

The latest smear against Barack Obama is that his "just words" speech:



was "plagiarized" (gee there's a loaded term) from Massachusetts governor Deval Patrick, whom as it turns out is good friends with Obama and who suggested he should use the comparison in his speech.

This is Rovian attack politics 101:

1. Identify the opposition candidate's greatest strength
-Kerry's war record
-Obama's oratorial skill

2. Turn that strength into a weakness by

a. pretending that the candidate is touting it him or herself as a strength.
-e.g. "Kerry isn't really the war hero he says he is" (never mind that he never said it himself)
-Obama is "running on his oratorial skills" (Oh, really?)

b. then undermining the basis for the strength
-Kerry "lied about his war record"
-Obama's "speeches are not his own"

c. associating
that strength with some negative idea and repeating it ad-nauseum in association with the candidate's name.
-Kerry "Lies"
-Obama "plagiarism"

This whole story has been concocted to connect Obama's name with the word "plagiarism". It's Obama's swiftboating. Hillary should be ashamed of herself for taking part in it. This is not what our party represents.

SLAUGHTERHOUSE FOLLOWUP

I posted the video below that shows a slaughterhouse in Southern CA that was slaughtering cows that were too weak or sick to stand by themselves by pushing them with a forklift and or kicking them or spraying water in their noses and mouths (a la waterboarding) to get them to move to the slaughter.

Apparently the outcry from that video has resulted in a recall of 143 million pounds of beef -much of which was being used in school lunches, and an investigation.

Let's keep the pressure on.

UPDATE: Yahoo now has the story on its front page.

IN A NUTSHELL

Yesterday I was having lunch with my family and inlaws and we were talking about politics. We all thankfully agree politically so the conversations rarely dissolve in to arguments and this was no exception, as we were agreeing about the current state of the democratic side of the race for president.

My 5 year old son with whom I'd had limited discussions about politics before -enough that he knows that "we" are democrats and that there are other people who are republicans- chimed in asking "why are we democrats?"

Nothing gives you a dose of "gut-check time" more than when you're forced to put your entire political belief system into a perspective that a 5-year-old can grasp. Moreover, I felt it important to give him a real answer and not just sluff it off with an "it's too complicated to get into" response.

I paused for what seemed like an eternity and finally responded with: "Because we believe that the government should help all of the people and not just the rich ones".

*whew*

That's really it though isn't it? Isn't that the idea behind "we the people"?

It's not that the republicans don't believe that the government should work for all of the people -it's that they don't believe that the government should work at all. Period. They don't believe in representative government -that's why they're perfectly happy handing over the reins of every function of daily life to private business and then letting private business follow its own agenda which is of course profit. For itself.

By definition that means that not everyone will be able to have access to those services/functions.

Therefore, since the republicans believe that business should fulfill many of the functions of government, they necessarily don't believe that those functions should be available to all of the people -but only the ones who can afford to pay a private business to do them. That is the traditional definition of "rich" -being able to afford private services: private schools, private hospitals, private security, private mail, ad infinitum.

How anyone could look at any of the actions of the republicans and the measures they support and come to any other conclusion is beyond me.

So, in 5-year-old terms Democrats believe that government should help all the people, Republicans believe the government should only help the rich.

"...and that's why we're democrats."