I hope I am doing this correctly, although somehow I doubt it.

• You did fine. I retitled the topic, because ObamaArticle was very general and not clear. The new title shows that the topic is a talk page, where ideas can be generated before being refactored, and that the topic of the talk is Judith Warner's piece on the Obama family. I added a link to the piece. I also gave the topic a proper parent, for the index, by attaching it to the course root.

Still, I felt compelled to post regarding the article concerning the effect the Obama family has had on people.

One of the repeated ideas surrounding the Obama campaign was that this was more than politics. The campaign was described as a movement, and more than any political figure (at least in my lifetime), Obama really transcended a lot of what a normal politician would represent. Many admirers described him in generalities, or on personal terms, while not much was discussed about the actual politics behind the man. Generally these 'movement' candidates fizzle (see Dean, Howard), but Obama kept going strong, probably for a variety of reasons (eloquence, timing, race, personal story, etc.). In the end, I believe he won mainly because of what people felt he was as a person.

• On what does that belief rest? Given the standing with the voters of the outgoing administration and the economic situation as the election approached, most observers would have said that a Democratic victory would not depend much on the personal attributes of the candidates. Does the exit polling data give you something for your argument? Or is your belief grounded in some other evidence?

Generally, people have seemed to project their best thoughts and hopes on Obama; this makes sense, since clearly a candidate of pessimism isn't going to win much support. Still, the fact that this article had a clearly negative context was fascinating to me, and seems to speak most to the fragile psyche of (American?) people. By getting so caught up in the accomplishments of one person, the subjects in the article then reflect on their own inadequacies. Where does this instinct come from? Our competitive culture? Maybe I am reading this wrong, but this article definitely left a sour taste in my mouth.

• Could you explain what you mean a little more? Your mouth is dissatisfied because (1) people have more complex feelings about Obama than they used to; (2) Judith Warner should be more with the program; (3) you're disappointed that people have more complex feelings about Obama than you thought they did; (4) people shouldn't be comparing themselves to a demigod like him; (5) something else?

-- AaronShepard - 11 Feb 2009

I think that having people "project their best thoughts and hopes" was rather the point of the campaign. More accurately, it was to have people believe that Mr. Obama stood for whatever they wanted him to stand for (thus the enthusiasm that Arnold says any candidate requires, which to those who disagree appears to be demagogy.

I take something less negative from the article as a whole -- I see more a sense of wonder at one's own past from these people, not anger and not really regret. It is like what happens once you grow older than movie stars -- they cease to be hazy magical people (Boagart, Bacall) and are simply kids who won a different kind of lottery (Di Caprio, Damon, Affleck). You don't think less of them (and I didn't read people as thinking less of Obama). But you do realize that destinies are not set in stone, and within the frameworks that have been imposed upon us, we have made choices.

-- AndrewCase - 11 Feb 2009

Regarding why he won, my reference was more to his overall campaign, mainly the primary. In the general election, I think party affiliation was probably the biggest factor, for obvious reasons. But if you look at the initial part of the campaign (where it is easier to discern), my point was that a lot of the attention was focused on who Obama was, as opposed to what he stood for. I mean, how many people fainted at Kerry rallies? Obviously there are many facets to the equation, but I think the fact that people so readily identified with, and projected ideals on Obama aided him tremendously.

As far as the other comment, I would say it's a mix of 4 and 5, and which in my mind are totally (or perhaps mostly) unrelated. Regarding 4, it saddens me that people have a desire (or compulsion/urge/draw) to compare themselves negatively with someone such as Obama. I suppose the examples with his fellow Harvard Law students are a bit more palatable, but even so, to let one elite person define your own relative success is unfortunate.

As far as transitioning into 5, which I suppose has only a tangential relationship to the article, my concern is that people have the WRONG feelings about Obama, not necessarily that they aren't complex enough. While trusting one's president is important (as is feeling good about him, believing in him, etc.), voting is still a political decision. I feel like many people became engaged in the civic political process because they liked the guy, not because they actually have a concept of the issues. Hopefully, this translates into a broader political awareness, and participating by people in the process. It is concerning though that so many are hanging so much on someone who, when it comes down to it, is still a politician. He's captured a lot of people on a personal level, but does that renewed vigor carry on past him?

One final point I'd make is on the meaning people put in his election (as witnessed by the feelings in the article). My friend teaches in the Bronx, and many of her kids now have a tremendous belief that the racial barriers they have faced are weakening, and that more doors are open to them as a result of the election. Clearly this is a beneficial effect, but I worry that it clouds the reality of what happened. For all the intrigue of his story, Obama is still 'elite'; he went to a rich private school, eventually followed by two Ivy league institutions. While his election certainly has some meaning, I think it will mean more for society when one of the kids from the Bronx becomes President.

I apologize if that went off task a bit, and if the midweek grind affected the cogency of any part of that rant. I also don't want it to seem like I resent Obama or the feelings surrounding him; quite the opposite in fact, as I'm personally glad it helped him. And while I'm happy he's President, I worry about the expectations and feelings (such as those discussed in the article) that are put on him.

-- AaronShepard - 11 Feb 2009

Andrew, I'm not disagreeing that that was the point of the campaign; I think it clearly was, and it worked brilliantly (with a nice helping of fortunate timing). But I think it's unfortunate that people are necessarily led to regret their own decisions as a result of the candidacy, and this perhaps speaks of the danger such a candidacy poses. People can get over movie stars, but Obama might be a bigger hurdle.

-- AaronShepard - 11 Feb 2009

A point which the article circled around, and which Aaron addresses, is the extent to which people feel as though they "know" Obama or can identify with him as a person. To presume such knowledge of a person who is extremely intelligent and who is equally calculated and measured is dangerous. It bothers me that people, in this day and age of cynicism and disillusionment, are still willing to have these blind allegiances.

If things aren't what they're called but what they do, then we don't fully know our president. We certainly don't know whether he and his wife have a great relationship, or whether he'd be a good lover, or whether he can be a part in solving the crises we face. We do know that he has a commitment to public service, that he is well-spoken and far less dogmatic than his predecessor, and that his election was a watershed event that has important implications for "JUSTICE" and our future.

Andrew's depiction of the campaign as allowing people to project their hopes onto Obama, to make him whatever they wanted him to be, seems pretty accurate to me. However, as Aaron notes, this is a worrisome state of affairs if followed by the president's inability to turn America into the land of milk and honey. Popular movements for "change" might help Obama to fulfill his promises, but I think its difficult to underestimate this country's capacity for apathy.

-- WalkerNewell - 11 Feb 2009

I don't think any of us are disagreeing about Obama, though perhaps about the others in the article. I guess I just didn't see them as bitter or angry so much as sort of in a state of sweet wonder. People I went to high school with are correspondents for ABC News, partners at law firms, on the editorial board of the Times, running newspapers in Australia, and Oscar nominees. I do not begrudge any of them that -- but I sometimes do nod my head and think how funny the world can be.

-- AndrewCase - 11 Feb 2009

Walker: I think it's because we live in such an age of cynicism and disillusionment that people were desperately waiting for someone like Obama, someone they could project their dreams onto without too much cognitive dissonance and who gave them permission to talk unironically about this like hope and justice.

I do think you're right that the idolization is disturbing. Ironically, I think this country's apathy is actually likely to make people place more faith in Obama than we otherwise would. Inflating him in our minds to some sort of savior absolves us of having to care or pay attention to current events. It is easier for an apathetic population to place its trust in a single hero to fix all its problems than it is for it to realize that everyone, individually and collectively, has to start doing things differently.

-- AnjaliBhat - 12 Feb 2009