"Obama Comedown Syndrome" ~ this made me chuckle...

[Colleen]

I got a chuckle out of David Brooks' piece in yesterday's NYTimes, particularly this line: (I)f we are the change we have been waiting for then why have we been waiting since we’ve been here all along? (Footnote for the record: I am not "for" or "against" Obama or any other viable candidate. I am still wearing black, mourning the absence of Al Gore.;))

* * * * *

"At first it seemed like a few random cases of lassitude among Mary Chapin Carpenter devotees in Berkeley, Cambridge and Chapel Hill. But then psychotherapists began to realize patients across the country were complaining of the same distress. They were experiencing the first hints of what’s bound to be a national phenomenon: Obama Comedown Syndrome.

"The afflicted had already been through the phases of Obama-mania — fainting at rallies, weeping over their touch screens while watching Obama videos, spending hours making folk crafts featuring Michelle Obama’s face. These patients had experienced intense surges of hope-amine, the brain chemical that fuels euphoric sensations of historic change and personal salvation.

"But they found that as the weeks went on, they needed more and purer hope-injections just to preserve the rush. They wound up craving more hope than even the Hope Pope could provide, and they began experiencing brooding moments of suboptimal hopefulness. Anxious posts began to appear on the Yes We Can! Facebook pages. A sense of ennui began to creep through the nation’s Ian McEwan-centered book clubs.

"Up until now The Chosen One’s speeches had seemed to them less like stretches of words and more like soul sensations that transcended time and space. But those in the grips of Obama Comedown Syndrome began to wonder if His stuff actually made sense. For example, His Hopeness tells rallies that we are the change we have been waiting for, but if we are the change we have been waiting for then why have we been waiting since we’ve been here all along?

"Patients in the grip of O.C.S. rarely express doubts at first, but in a classic case of transference, many experience slivers of sympathy for Hillary Clinton. They see her campaign morosely traipsing from one depressed industrial area to another — The Sitting Shiva for America Tour. They see that her entire political strategy consists of waiting for primary states as boring as she is.

"They feel for her. They feel guilty because the entire commentariat now treats her like Richard Nixon. Are liberal elites rationalizing their own betrayal of her? Is Hillary just another fading First Wife thrown away for the first available Trophy Messiah?

"As the syndrome progresses, they begin to ask questions about The Presence himself:

"Barack Obama vowed to abide by the public finance campaign-spending rules in the general election if his opponent did. But now he’s waffling on his promise. Why does he need to check with his campaign staff members when deciding whether to keep his word?

"Obama says he is practicing a new kind of politics, but why has his PAC sloshed $698,000 to the campaigns of the superdelegates, according to the Center for Responsive Politics? Is giving Robert Byrd’s campaign $10,000 the kind of change we can believe in?

"If he values independent thinking, why is his the most predictable liberal vote in the Senate? A People for the American Way computer program would cast the same votes for cheaper.

"And should we be worried about Obama’s mountainous self-confidence?

"These doubts lead O.C.S. sufferers down the path to the question that is the Unholy of the Unholies for Obama-maniacs: How exactly would all this unity he talks about come to pass?

"How is a 47-year-old novice going to unify highly polarized 70-something committee chairs? What will happen if the nation’s 261,000 lobbyists don’t see the light, even after the laying on of hands? Does The Changemaker have the guts to take on the special interests in his own party — the trial lawyers, the teachers’ unions, the AARP?

"The Gang of 14 created bipartisan unity on judges, but Obama sat it out. Kennedy and McCain created a bipartisan deal on immigration. Obama opted out of the parts that displeased the unions. Sixty-eight senators supported a bipartisan deal on FISA. Obama voted no. And if he were president now, how would the High Deacon of Unity heal the breach that split the House last week?

"The victims of O.C.S. struggle against Obama-myopia, or the inability to see beyond Election Day. But here’s the fascinating thing: They still like him. They know that most of his hope-mongering is vaporous. They know that he knows it’s vaporous.

"But the fact that they can share this dream still means something. After the magic fades and reality sets in, they still know something about his soul, and he knows something about theirs. They figure that any new president is going to face gigantic obstacles. At least this candidate seems likely to want to head in the right direction. Obama’s hype comes from exaggerating his powers and his virtues, not faking them.

"Those afflicted with O.C.S. are no longer as moved by his perorations. The fever passes. But some invisible connection seems to persist."

[Hen Jen]

that made me laugh too, clever tongue in cheek.

thanks for sharing it, I probably wouldn't have found it anywhere, I'm not really into politics anymore...

[Peek a Boo]

hee hee...

we went to the Obama Rally in Dallas this past Wednesday. The guy who was introduced to introduce Obama [why the heck to they DO that???], introduced Obama as "a man with the integrity of Kennedy...." and went on to continue the analogies and comparisons, but I stopped listening there. They might want to clarify exactly what KIND of integrity they're talking about, lol! Maybe WHICH Kennedy too :)

[Karenciavo]

They might want to clarify exactly what KIND of integrity they're talking about, lol! Maybe WHICH Kennedy too :)

I'm pretty sure they are going for Jack Kennedy, but not the tabloid JFK, the idealized one.

[Peek a Boo]

except that *integrity* --like character-- is characterized by what you do when nobody is looking :)

I'm sure we all want to pick and choose the qualities of our favorite historical figures, but when you discuss integrity, you have to look at the whole package, not an idealized version.

[Mama Lynx]

hee hee...

we went to the Obama Rally in Dallas this past Wednesday. The guy who was introduced to introduce Obama [why the heck to they DO that???], introduced Obama as "a man with the integrity of Kennedy...." and went on to continue the analogies and comparisons, but I stopped listening there. They might want to clarify exactly what KIND of integrity they're talking about, lol! Maybe WHICH Kennedy too :)

ROTFLMAO

[PrairieAir]

except that *integrity* --like character-- is characterized by what you do when nobody is looking :)

I'm sure we all want to pick and choose the qualities of our favorite historical figures, but when you discuss integrity, you have to look at the whole package, not an idealized version.

Part of me agrees with that.

JFK was assassinated and it became a great national tragedy and he was promoted to hero status. I know he was a popular president before he was killed, but I wonder what people would have thought of him and of his presidency if he had lived to a ripe old age. When someone dies, particularly at a young age and with a promising future ahead, people seem to stop questioning the character and actions of that person. It's like it's some major taboo to say anything against such a person.

Last summer a 13-year-old boy in our town died in an accident. He and two other boys from his class had taken one of the boys' older brother's car and gone for a joy ride. The one boy was killed, another passenger was severely injured and almost died. The driver was mostly unharmed. It was tragic for the families and for the entire town. The boy who died received instant sainthood in everyone's eyes. He had been a willing participant at least up to a point. People acknowledged the wrong-doing of the passenger who was severely injured, but quickly forgave him. Kids will be kids and he'd suffered enough physically and through the loss of his best friend. The boy who was driving was immediately villanized. My daughter told me the other day that his family recently moved away because the whole town considers him a murderer who continued to drive wildly and erratically while the other boys pleaded with him to stop. Whether the other boys really did beg the driver to stop no one can know for sure, but it's the story the injured boy has told. Weren't all boys somewhat responsible? Can we really call this foolish 13yo kid who has been through quite a lot himself a murderer and the other boys just a kid being a kid and an innocent victim? The kid who died was not perfect, but all his past misdeeds are forgotten and anyone who would dare to remember him as less than perfect would suffer the towns wrath.

I think the same thinking applies to our view of presidents and other public figures. Would Nixon have been villified as much if he too had been assasinated? Would we be more likely to remember the shady dealings and scandal of Kennedy's presidency if he had not?

Then again, what president, public figure, or regular Joe can we find throughout history who was without sin? I can think of only one and his thoughts and deeds are an example to me in determining how I think about others whether they are public figures or mere mortals like most of us. (Well, I try to follow the example anyway.)

Martin Luther King, Jr. is a man whose life I greatly admire. Since his death, details of how he did not quite live his life as saintly and perfectly as we'd like to believe have come to light. Does that mean he was not a great man who did much good in this world? Does it mean that I cannot find wisdom and inspiration in his words? Did he have no character traits which I might hold up for an example, no deeds I might aspire to? I think not. He was simply a man and as such imperfect, just like the rest of us. Perhaps that makes his life and work even more inspiring because we see that common people with common faults may still achieve much. I'm sure Dr. King would agree that perfection is not something man can obtain on his own nor in this world.

[Peek a Boo]

Then again, what president, public figure, or regular Joe can we find throughout history who was without sin? I can think of only one and his thoughts and deeds are an example to me in determining how I think about others whether they are public figures or mere mortals like most of us. (Well, I try to follow the example anyway.)

Martin Luther King, Jr. is a man whose life I greatly admire. Since his death, details of how he did not quite live his life as saintly and perfectly as we'd like to believe have come to light. Does that mean he was not a great man who did much good in this world? Does it mean that I cannot find wisdom and inspiration in his words? Did he have no character traits which I might hold up for an example, no deeds I might aspire to? I think not. He was simply a man and as such imperfect, just like the rest of us. Perhaps that makes his life and work even more inspiring because we see that common people with common faults may still achieve much. I'm sure Dr. King would agree that perfection is not something man can obtain on his own nor in this world.

Absolutely! --that's why I mentioned that *what kind* of integrity might help in the analogy.

When we ARE aware of the habitual faults of others we do still need to hold them accountable for that. It is totally possible to appreciate a person's actions in one area and deplore their actions in another. I think that makes it even more important in using a word like 'integrity' --don't throw a word like that around w/o knowing exactly what it is you want to compare.

[Eliana]

In a similar spirit of enjoying the humor without necessarily agreeing with the sentiments, here's a piece I found a few weeks ago which was a welcome antidote to the more serious Op-Ed pieces I've been reading:

Letter to Our European Friends
Everything you need to know about our presidential campaign.
by P.J. O'Rourke
02/04/2008, Volume 013, Issue 20




America is in the midst of an all-important electoral campaign. But, talking to Europeans, I've discovered that there is puzzlement and misinformation on your continent about what's happening on ours. Europeans feel an understandable confusion when faced with a political system consisting of two houses of Congress and a White House, and nobody is home in any of them.
Also, America's political parties are indistinguishable to the European eye. A British journalist once described the situation thus: "America is a one-party state, but just like Americans they've got two of them." (I forget which British journalist said that. But there are so many British journalists who should be forgotten. Maybe it was Alexander Cockburn.)
The difference between American parties is actually simple. Democrats are in favor of higher taxes to pay for greater spending, while Republicans are in favor of greater spending, for which the taxpayers will pay. In foreign policy, Republicans intend to pursue the war in Iraq but to do so with a minimal number of troops on the ground. This is not to be confused with the disastrous Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld policy of using a minimal number of troops on the ground to pursue the war in Iraq. Democrats intend to end the war, but they don't know when. Democrats are making the "high school sex promise": I'll pull out in time, honest!
There are two factors in American politics that may seem strange to Europeans, race and religion. You, of course, don't have any religion. Except every now and then someone who came to Europe lately and is a Muslim blows himself to bits. But I understand that you have EU funding to address these social problems and help Muslims build bombs that release fewer pollutants and less carbon dioxide, reducing the threat of global warming.
After the events of the 20th century, God, quite reasonably, left Europe. But He's still here in the United States. The majority of Americans are Christians, and Christians can be divided into two kinds, the kind who think you should get Jesus and the kind who think Jesus is going to get you. Mike Huckabee is one of the latter. Then there are the Mormons such as Mitt Romney who believe some unusual things--things that no sensible European like Jean-Paul Sartre, Martin Heidegger, Benito Mussolini, Karl Marx, Emanuel Swedenborg, or Cherie Blair would ever believe.
The question of race in America is supposed to be a matter of what one looks like. But it is difficult to comprehend how a political interest group that contains both Al Sharpton and Halle Berry could be based on looks. Barack Obama looks like he was raised in Hawaii. He may have just a good tan.
The number of American presidential candidates varies with the sunspot cycle and the phases of the moon. Being a Republican, I'm backing Hillary Clinton. Because she could lose. The reason is not that she's a woman. The reason is that she's the particular woman who taught the 4th grade class that every man in America wished he were dead in. Hillary Clinton is Lucy holding the football for Charlie Brown. Hillary Clinton is "America's ex-wife."
A man can be a Democrat to the core, going into the voting booth to pull the lever with the donkey label no matter what. Then he sees Hillary's name on the ballot. And it all comes back to him .  .  . the first marriage .  .  . the time he came home a little late, it wasn't even midnight, and he'd only had four or five beers, and she threw his bowling ball down the storm sewer.
The Republicans will have a hard time coming up with someone who can't beat Hillary Clinton. But I don't put it past them. You may remember Senator Bob Dole in 1996.
At the moment Republicans seem inclined to John McCain. Everyone loves John McCain. Everyone respects John McCain. He's tough. He's consistent. He's wrong. Not that I personally agree with you Europeans that John is wrong, but the voters do. John thinks the war in Iraq is a good idea. The electorate doesn't. John's campaign slogan is "Strong and Wrong."
Mitt Romney is supposed to be my own type of candidate, a true conservative. But Mitt was governor of Massachusetts. This is like applying to be pope and listing your prior job experience as "Chief Rabbi of Jerusalem."
Mitt Romney is also the "corporate candidate," promising to bring the organizational skills and fiscal discipline of corporate America to Washington. But we are in the midst of a global credit collapse and all the air is hissing out of the world's equity market balloons. We've had big corporate scandals--Enron, WorldCom, Tyco--in the not too distant past. We may have a deep recession in the not too distant future. Is this the moment to be pitching the voters on "business savvy"?
Rudy Giuliani is a wonderful person to have around during a tragedy. His campaign promise is that there will be a tragedy every week.
As for Fred Thompson, he didn't have much impact. Yes, he's a Republican who was seen on TV a lot. But so was Scooter Libby.
Mike Huckabee lost some support among the hard-core fundamentalists when Bible Belt denizens realized that John McCain was the only candidate with enough guts to really handle rattlesnakes at church. The rest of the public remains alert to the fact that evangelical Christianity, as a movement, has two faces--the Moral Majority face and the Tammy Faye Bakker face.
Let us not forget Ron Paul who is very popular--with people who stay up all night in Ayn Rand chatrooms, bury Krugerrands in the yard, and think the Trilateral Commission causes sub-prime mortgage foreclosures.
Incidentally, there's a balanced position that all of America's presidential candidates could take on the controversial abortion issue. If they want votes they shouldn't campaign to make abortion illegal or legal. They should campaign to make it retroactive. If a kid reaches 25 and he or she is still jobless, feckless, and sitting around Starbucks acting like a--no offense--European, then whack.
Meanwhile, in the Democratic field, Barack Obama may be altering our national political equation. Obama is an indication that America has reached an important benchmark in race relations. In America it is now officially more important to be cute than to be white. Barack Obama is cute, and he's nice. It's been a long time since any political party in America had the cute, nice vote sewn up. Rudy Giuliani? Not so nice. Bill Clinton? Don't get cute.
The problem for Obama is that, as yet, he doesn't have much political stature. However, there is a "Disney factor" is American politics. Think of America's politicians as the Seven Dwarves. They're all short--short on ethics, short on experience, short on common sense, short on something. But we keep thinking that one of these dwarves is going to save our snow white butt.
We've got Dopey right now. We had Sleazy before him. Grumpy lost in '04. Sleepy was great in the 1980s, but he's dead. How about Obama?
Who else do the Democrats have? There is, of course, Nobel Peace Prize-winning Al Gore. May I ask you Europeans, are your Norwegians crazy? What does the Nobel Peace Prize have to do with global warming? Did Al forge a truce in the war with the penguins? I'm trying to lead a carbon-neutral lifestyle myself. I've given up cigars. I think Al Gore should give up blowing smoke out his .  .  .
John Edwards is a personal injury lawyer, the sort of fellow who covers North Carolina with billboards reading, "Y'all May Have Been Malpracticed on by a Doctor and Not Even Know It. Call (800) S-H-Y-S-T-E-R." One of the remaining virtues of European civilization is that you aren't overrun with his ilk. John Edwards should go sue Krispy Kreme doughnuts for making his supporters too fat to get into the voting booths.
Dennis Kucinich swept the Mars caucuses.
Then there are the Democrats who're actually qualified to be president--Bill Richardson, Joe Biden, and Chris Dodd. All three have dropped out of the race. Before they did, they managed, between them, to raise almost $1,000 (2.79 euros) for their campaigns.
This leaves the Democrats with Hillary Clinton. She's going to reform America's health care system. Memo to Hillary: You already reformed America's health care system, 15 years ago. Just the outline of Hillary's 1993 health care plan was 1,400 pages long, almost as long as that equally successful reform document, the EU constitution.
Many political analysts say that the failure of Hillary's health care plan almost destroyed Bill Clinton's first term. You'll recall that Bill Clinton had to seek help from a different woman to almost destroy his second term.
But no matter who is elected America's next president--whether Barack Obama, John McCain, Hillary Clinton, or even Ron Paul--it is important that Europeans be reassured that ordinary Americans will not change the way they think about Europe. They will continue to think they aren't sure where it is on the map.
P.J. O'Rourke is a contributing editor to THE WEEKLY STANDARD.

Eliana

[Pam "SFSOM" in TN]

Laughing here!

[Laurel]

Thank you for posting that article Eliana. I am busting up laughing over it. :D

[WTMindy]

I'll have to pass both of these on to dh!

[Tutor]

We love P.J. O'Rourke but hadn't read this. Thanks for sharing it.