I already showed you a video of a panel of Obama supporters who were unable — a single one of them — to name any of Obama’s legislative or other accomplishments. But even his elected supporters — members of Congress and governors (!) — cannot come up with anything. (Uh, you’d think that Obama’s campaign would send them some talking points? If they can come up with a few?) (h/t Taylor Marsh and MyDD‘s “Breaking Blue”)
Then there are Congressman Bobby Scott (D-Va) and Governor James Doyle, Jr. (D-Wisc), who can’t think of a thing to say about their candidate’s qualifications — along with the concerns of Der Spiegel (“Change You Can’t Believe In“) and The Economist (“But could he deliver?”):
Then, I saw one of his supporters – a congressman from Virginia, Bobby Scott – being interviewed. The interviewer noted that the voters couldn’t name a single achievement of Mr. Obama, but surely someone in the political arena could. The congressman made a feeble effort to suggest accomplishments but finally fell back on the platitudes and slogans that are Mr. Obama’s stock and trade. The congressman said things like “he will bring us together,” and “he will get things done.” Unfortunately, neither Mr. Obama nor his supporters can tell us what happens after we’re all brought together, or how he’ll bring us together in the first place. By like token, they can tell us Mr. Obama means change but know little or nothing about what, if anything, will be changed. … via Philadelphia’s The Bulletin
Can you believe that a Congressman didn’t have a clue how to express what Obama specifically has to offer? This is not just some ordinary Obama supporter rhapsodizing about Obama’s charisma — this is an elected official! And he’s not the only one. KCK, a fine diarist and longtime activist writes in “Hillary Rodham, Chair of the Legal Services Corporation” about Wisconsin’s governor:
I don’t care who you vote for, but you should know why. I just watched the Wisconsin Governor Doyle endorse Obama on Hardball yet when asked what Obama’s accomplishments are he stuttered and fell short surprised as if the question wasn’t fair. He answered with O’s ethics legislation and community org. & said that his kids and wife are for Obama and well he finally decided to join up…
Those last two quotes are from my piece, “The Economist: ‘But could he deliver?’ [UPDATED].” The highly respected Economist magazine dared to bring up the obvious:
“It is time for America to evaluate Obama the potential president, not Obama the phenomenon.”
Then there’s Der Spiegel:
By Gabor Steingart in Washington
The rise of democratic frontrunner Barack Obama signifies an alarming victory of style over substance. Not unlike the dot-com hype, his campaign promises more than he can deliver. The one thing his voters can count on is that they will ultimately be disappointed. …
Oh will they. Already, my fellow Hillary supporters, people who write diaries at Daily Kos and know that crowd intimately, are anticipating the crashing drop in respect for Obama should he become president, and fail to fulfill all that they have PROJECTED on to him. (Most of which Obama, let’s be honest, doesn’t believe in all that deeply.)
My gut take on Obama, from watching him a lot and observing him closely: He is all about the win. He eats up the crowd fervor. He gets off on it. It makes him feel powerful and omnipotent.
His campaign has told people to leave the policy stuff, for those few “wonks” who want it, to some pages on his campaign Web site. (That’s linked here in a recent article.)
But you have to do far more than ride a wave of people’s projected hopes. When you become president, the shit hits the fan, as my mom used to say.
“The one thing his voters can count on is that they will ultimately be disappointed.” Der Spiegel has it exactly right.