Obama: Too inspirational?
Can a candidate -- and his campaign -- be too inspirational? Jake Tapper seems to think so, as does Suzanne Goldenberg of the Guardian. And closer to home, when discussing the relative merits of Obama over Clinton, certain people have even commented to me, "Gosh, you're talking like one of them."
What's going on here?
I suspect the accusation of "cultism" is being put out by people who are uncomfortable with their own emotions; and/or by people who feel that we (Democrats) must be dispassionate in order to win elections. Of course, that is wrong. A quick look at recent history will tell you that.
That is not to say we have to abandon the reality-based community in order win success at the ballot box. On the contrary. But we, as Democrats, need to recognize that people and voters are moved by emotion. Study after study shows that people will rationalize all sorts of things contradictory things about their candidate if the emotion moves them.
Just look at John McCain: he's already running on the emotions of fear (of jihadism) and pride (St. John suffered so that you might live). His voters (including a lot of Independents) will overlook the hypocrisy that has rotted his career because they like feeling the feelings he invokes in them.
How do we deal with that?
Well, the positive emotions of hope and optimism about the future are what moves our voters (and a whole lot of Republicans and Independents). The sooner we learn that lesson, the bigger our victory will be in the fall.
Although I much prefer the narrative that Democrats simply had a great field to choose from who mostly agreed on future policy direction and that 70% of Democrats say they will be satisfied voting for the other candidate, I have to say that I have been somewhat shocked at the unreasonable partisanship I’ve witnessed throughout the primaries (you kind of expect that sort of thing from Republicans and Independents). Personally, I couldn’t even pick a candidate until it boiled down to the current choice, even though I’m very suspicious that Hillary’s hawkishness is more than just a façade she feels she needs because she’s a woman and a Democrat.
Anyway, I blame the strong desire of the basically rational two-thirds of the public to get the nation out of the hands of the ruling miscreants and their belief in who can best accomplish needed change. Perhaps Bush Derangement Syndrome will turn out to be something other than a Republican disease after all.
The term "petty flame war" is an oxymoron -- but that doesn't mean it isn't a very real phenomenon. The intensity of the war is pretty much in direct proportion to how minor the differences really are between the candidates.
And because the policy differences are minor, we're going to size up the candidates by who feels right (or wrong). Or maybe it's the other way around: we decide on how a candidate makes us feel and then rationalize any policy inconsistencies.