Ever since the 26 September 1960 first-ever televised presidential debate between Kennedy and Nixon, personality has become the biggest factor in
It's not just a matter of looks, although that plays a significant role, but charisma and presence become far more greater attributes to the Cult of
Personality than they did prior to the presidential race being broadcast on television.
Obama is young. He is attractive. He is virile. He says the right things at the right times. He tells people what they want to hear, and he does so
with an eloquence that has been unparalleled since Kennedy. He has the presence of Theodore Roosevelt, the (perceived) honesty of Abraham Lincoln
(come on, there's no such thing as an honest politician!), the heart of Franklin Roosevelt, the intellect of Al Gore, and he's almost as squeaky
clean of a Boy Scout as we thought Edwards was (before he got busted for his extra-marital affair).
Most of all, Obama was something different. People wanted change. Whether we got change with Obama is another story, but the promise of the chance of
something different was enough to give people hope...and that is a very powerful thing.
It's kind of like when you eat chicken every day for 8 years. When you have the opportunity to go out for your first time in 8 years to a restaurant,
do you order the chicken or do you try something different?
So, in the end Obama turned out to be not that different from his predecessor. So, the promises he made to get elected were either idealistic notions
or hollow words. So, he didn't turn out to the Messiah everyone was hoping he would be.
But at least he isn't the same old chicken we've been eating every night for 8 years!
Obama's not the Messiah, but he's not the Anti-Christ either. He's just a man with a dream, who lacked the experience in Major League Politics to
really make the differences he had hoped he would, and ultimately found himself making similar tough decisions that his predecessor had made under
intense criticism. He certainly could have done much worse than he has so far.
Still, considering the alternative of Palin (ahem, I mean McCain), I think Obama was a better choice (lesser of two evils) for the Nation, at least as
far as mending foreign relations with our allies that we had severely alienated for almost a decade. It would have been ideal to have had more choices
than just the lesser of two evils, but that's the flaw of having a Bicameral System.
As far as Ron Paul goes...I agree that although he is considered by his party and the mainstream as a "kook" he has some wonderful ideas about
government, some creative solutions to some of our problems, and a moral conscience on top of it all. I think Ron Paul is great, but I also know that
the likelihood of Ron Paul getting elected is about as likely as a Libertarian candidate being elected President for all the same reasons. Even if Ron
Paul marketed himself to the Cult of Personality, and somehow shed his lunatic-fringe reputation, the Bicameral Political System is simply against
him. Until that is changed, then a vote for a third party is a vote in vain.
[edit on 20-6-2009 by fraterormus]