SUBSCRIBE NOW WELCOME BACK. Do you want to continue reading where you left off? New Republic subscribers can pick up where they left off no matter which device they were previously using. SUBSCRIBE NOW

Go Home Deconstructing Barry

JULY 9, 2008

Deconstructing Barry

BY AUTHOR INFO NEEDED

"Le style, c'est l'homme," a Frenchman said a long
time ago. If style is indeed the man, and the man is on the verge of
being nominated for the presidency of the United States, it seems the
moment to ask what his style might tell us about his mind and heart.

Many Americans have already decided what they think about this
question. Some find in Barack Obama's eloquence the promise that he
will be a leader of insight and inspiration. Others distrust his verbal
fluency and feel he is nothing more than a smooth-talking huckster. I
know discerning people on both sides of the question. And, since there
is no evident correlation between eloquence and executive leadership
(Washington was an indifferent writer, Lincoln a great one), it may not
be possible to know who's right except in retrospect.

Even after his breakout into national prominence, Obama has remained
a largely unknown politician whose air of destiny can make him seem
distant and opaque. Yet, by listening closely to his language, I think
we can learn something about who he really is.

Everyone, pro and con, seems to agree that he is an unusually
gifted writer. So gifted, in fact, that the biographer and critic
Arnold Rampersad describes himself as "taken aback, even astonished" by
the "clever tricks" and "inventions for literary effect" he finds in
Obama's books. Consider this account in his memoir, Dreams from My Father,
of playing basketball in prep school, which starts with short
sentences, each ending in a percussive or sibilant monosyllable, then
moves into a run-on sentence that mimics the flow of the game:

"By the time I reached high school, I was playing on Punahou's teams,
and could take my game to the university courts, where a handful of
black men, mostly gym rats and has-beens, would teach me an attitude
that didn't just have to do with sport. That respect came from what you
did and not who your daddy was. That you could talk stuff to rattle an
opponent, but that you should shut the hell up if you couldn't back it
up. That you didn't let anyone sneak up behind you to see
emotions--like hurt or fear--you didn't want them to see.

"And something else, too, something nobody talked about: a way of
being together when the game was tight and the sweat broke and the best
players stopped worrying about their points and the worst players got
swept up in the moment and the score only mattered because that's how
you sustained the trance. In the middle of which you might make a move
or a pass that surprised even you, so that even the guy guarding you
had to smile, as if to say, 'Damn ...'"

This is a young writer (he was around 30 when he wrote Dreams)
strutting his stuff. Sometimes he overwrites, as when he describes
police cars cruising past groups of sullen black teens in "barracuda
silence" or compares a row of scrappy trees to "hair swept across a
bald man's head." He has a habit--almost a tic--of throwing in a
cinematic flourish when none is needed: "a spotted, mangy cat" runs
among weeds with a crumbling housing project in the background; a torn
poster-photo of the recently dead Chicago mayor, Harold Washington,
tumbles down a windswept street. And, as Rampersad suggests, he is a
master of sleight of hand, as when, recounting his trip to Kenya as a
young man in search of traces of his father, he takes what were clearly
multiple conversations with his half-sister and stitches them into a
seamless family history.

But none of these techniques strikes me as a "trick"--a word that implies fraudulence. What struck me instead about Dreams from My Father
is the feeling that through and beyond the local details the writing
opens out into universal experience. Obama describes his childhood in
Hawaii, where his white Midwestern mother and his black African father
met as students, in language so vivid that we almost taste the "rice
candy with edible wrappers" and feel the relief from the tropical heat
in the "cool rush of Manoa Falls, with its ginger blossoms and high
canopies filled with the sound of invisible birds."

But sooner or later in this Eden the serpent will make an
appearance. And so she does--in the form of a red-haired girl in his
fifth-grade class, who asks, with a hint of prurience, if she can touch
his hair. Having been raised largely unaware of race, Obama begins to
notice that "Cosby never got the girl on I Spy" and that the "black man on Mission Impossible spent all his time underground." The schoolgirl's question is followed by the shock of coming upon a photo in Life magazine
of a black man, his skin blotched and made pallid by a "chemical
treatment" he had "paid for ... with his own money" in an effort to
bleach out his blackness.

I am imputing a theme here--the fall from paradise--that Obama
suggests only lightly even as he tends to group his memories into
episodes of temptation and redemption. In a chapter on his college
years, he hints at having been tempted by drugs and what he calls
"African nationalism." After college, playing half- willingly the role
of Model Minority in a New York consulting firm, he fears the "beauty,
the filth, the noise" of the great city, where, in order to resist its
allure, he takes "on the temperament if not the convictions of a street
corner preacher, prepared to see temptation everywhere, ready to
overrun a fragile will."

Fleeing to Chicago, he confronts new tempters--old pols, gangbangers
turned radicals, and, most dangerous, the sins of wrath and
despair--until he finds the promise of redemption in service itself.

It is in Chicago, where "the snowstorms rolled in, boundless prairie
storms that set the sky close to the ground," that he gets to know the
sort of people who seem wary of him today--"men and women who smoked a
lot and didn't watch their weight, shopped at Sears or Kmart ... and
ate in Red Lobster on special occasions." Perhaps because he grew up in
a fatherless house (his father left when Barack was barely two), he
feels a special connection to the mothers and grandmothers, mainly but
not only black, who harbor childhood memories of church-centered
Southern towns, and of the tidy city to which they brought their hopes,
before the meatpacking or auto-parts plant closed and their fathers,
brothers, or husbands lost their jobs and dreams. He writes about these
people with great sensitivity--watching through women's eyes as their
children's "eyes stop laughing." He is touched by their practice of
wrapping treasured sofas and carpets in protective plastic--to be
peeled off, they still dare to hope, on the day when the family will
rally for the graduation or wedding of a child who has not fallen to
the drug culture of the streets.

The climactic section of the book is the account of his journey to
Kenya--"a Westerner not entirely at home in the West, an African on his
way to a land full of strangers"--in which he reverts to the lush
language with which he had recounted his childhood in Hawaii. To his
Western eyes, Kenya sometimes seems a picturesque "fable, a painting by
Rousseau" in which lions yawn in peaceful repose while "a train of
Masai women" passes by, "their heads shaven clean, their slender bodies
wrapped in red shukas, their earlobes elongated and ringed with
bright beads." The family members he comes to know--sisters, brothers,
even a surviving grandmother--are warm and welcoming people, but this
Eden, too, turns out to be a mirage.

On the one hand, it is a loving world where "nobody sends their
parents to an old people's home or leaves their children with
strangers"; on the other hand, it is a world of mud-and-dung huts
where, witnessing a young mother with her child, he has to fight "the
urge to brush away the flies that formed two solid rings around the
baby's puffed eyes." Looking back in his imagination from this dual
world to his native America, he sees its own dualities more clearly
from the distance. Shooting hoops with a young half-brother in Kenya,
he "tried to picture the basketball courts back in the States. The
sound of gunshots nearby, a guy peddling nickel hits in the
stairwell--that was one picture. The laughter of boys playing in their
suburban backyard, their mother calling them in for lunch. That was
true, too."

Obama's trip to Kenya, where he learns about the dashing but
ultimately defeated father whom he barely knew, seems to free him from
his enervating struggle to overcome temptation and find redemption.
There is a feeling of release as he comes back home with a deepened
appreciation of the complexities of history and a sense of his own
opportunities and obligations in America.

Obama's second book, The Audacity of Hope, which takes its title from a sermon by the now-notorious Jeremiah Wright, was written a decade after Dreams from My Father.
It is less personal and more miscellaneous--a set of loosely linked
reflections on the effects of the press on politics, on the
compromising clubbiness of the Senate, on the insularity of powerful
people living in a kind of quarantine that only beneficiaries and
would-be benefactors can violate. Though here and there his literary
instincts reassert themselves (there's a nice description of the
"python curves" of the Mississippi as seen from the air), this is
basically a policy book in which the writing is more efficient than
expressive. We get some familiar lamentation about gridlock
politics--about the effects of gerrymandering or the irony that the
filibuster, once an instrument used by reactionaries to obstruct
liberal legislation, is now used (or threatened) by liberals to
obstruct the appointment of reactionary judges. Sometimes the whole
book seems a farewell to, or at least a rationale for leaving, the
Senate.

Yet the voice of the writer is fundamentally the same as the one we hear in Dreams.
There is the same internal counterpoise in the sentences: "Most
evangelicals are more tolerant than the media would have us believe,
most secularists more spiritual" ... "most rich people want the poor to
succeed, and most of the poor are more self-critical and hold higher
aspirations than the popular culture allows." When he scans the human
landscape, Obama tends to notice contradictory individuals more than
coherent interest groups. His sentences are alive because they are in
tension with themselves:

I imagine the white Southerner who growing up heard his dad talk
about niggers this and niggers that but who has struck up a friendship
with the black guys at the office and is trying to teach his own son
different, who thinks discrimination is wrong but doesn't see why the
son of a black doctor should get admitted into law school ahead of his
own. Or the former Black Panther who decided to go into real estate,
bought a few buildings in the neighborhood, and is just as tired of the
drug dealers in front of those buildings as he is of the bankers who
won't give a loan to expand his business. There's the middle- aged
feminist who still mourns her abortion, and the Christian woman who
paid for her teenager's abortion ...

This is the writing of someone trying to map a route through a world
where choices are less often between good and bad than between
competing goods. Though it lacks the sensual immediacy of the earlier
book, the language is open and unresolved, the sentences organized
around pairs of sentiments or arguments that exert equal force against
each other--a reflection of ongoing thinking rather than a statement of
settled thoughts.

Both these books are the work of a dialectical mind. Both are
written by someone who believes in progress but not that all liberal
social programs constitute progress. "By detaching income from work,"
he writes of "the old AFDC program" (Aid to Families with Dependent
Children), it "sapped people of their initiative and eroded their
self-respect." He has an Orwellian alertness to how easily language
degenerates into cant, as when the term of praise "bipartisan" is used
to dress up a sacrifice of principle by the weaker party in a political
dispute. And he understands the presence of the past in public
life--not only of recent history, as in his discussion of the
Democratic Party since the breakdown of the New Deal coalition, but of
distant history, as in his reflections on the imperiled idea of
deliberative democracy as inherited from the founding fathers.

Remarkably enough for a contemporary politician, Obama's sense of
the American past includes our literary past. His books are
allusive--sometimes overtly, as when he dissents from F. Scott
Fitzgerald ("in politics there may be second acts, but no second
place"), sometimes obliquely, as when, relating an incident with a
waiter in Nairobi, he echoes W.E.B. DuBois's famous passage in The Souls of Black Folk
on "double consciousness." The waiter is a Kenyan citizen but still a
colonial-minded servant fawning on white customers while snubbing
blacks: "And so he straddles two worlds, uncertain in each, always off
balance, playing whichever game staves off the bottomless poverty,
careful to let his anger vent itself only on those in the same
condition."

Writing recently in The New York Times Book Review, George Packer recommended that Obama read Theodore Dreiser's great Chicago novel Sister Carrie--in
order, Packer wrote rather patronizingly, to learn about "the sort of
American he doesn't know." If Obama hasn't already read Dreiser (I
suspect he has), he needs no tutoring about the kinds of lives Dreiser
wrote about--lives of unfocused longing, vulnerable to temptation and
exploitation. Indeed there is a sense in which he brings together in
his memoir, as Dreiser did in his fiction, the two basic American
stories--stories of rising and stories of awakening. His books are
"how-to" books about his own exemplary success at competing with others
in the marketplace, but they are also conversion narratives about his
discovery that serving others is the only way to save oneself.

It is hard for any writer, no matter how selective his memory or
guarded his words, to conceal himself in his writing. I suspect (I've
never met him) that the weaknesses and strengths of Obama's writing
reflect those of his character-- a virtuosity that tempts him to be
pleased with himself and impatient with others, but also an awareness
of human complexity that made me think of a writer to whom he does not
allude, Henry James, whose criterion for the artist as someone "on whom
nothing is lost" he meets.

Finally, one feels in Obama's books as well as his speeches
the presence of that iconic American, Abraham Lincoln, whom he
sometimes names and sometimes namelessly invokes. In The Audacity of Hope,
he tells of having once received a rebuke ("not entirely undeserved")
for presumptuously likening himself in print to Lincoln. On his first
visit to the White House as a freshman senator, he tells us, Lincoln
appeared to him as a ghostly figure "pacing the hall, shouldering the
weight of a nation," the moral and political genius who managed to
maintain "within himself the balance between two contradictory
ideas--that we must talk and reach for common understandings, precisely
because all of us are imperfect and can never act with the certainty
that God is on our side; and yet at times we must act nonetheless, as
if we are certain, protected from error only by providence."

This description of Lincoln as a man of self-doubt yet with an
unswerving sense of mission is as instructive as it is insightful.
Obama seems to have composed his public life in conscious emulation of
Lincoln. He announced his candidacy in Springfield and delivered his
speech on race in Philadelphia, where Lincoln, en route to his first
inauguration, gave a great speech on the Declaration of Independence as
America's secular scripture. In his victory speech on the night of
clinching the Democratic nomination, Obama incorporated or played
variations on several phrases from Lincoln--"the last full measure of
devotion," "the last best hope of earth," "the better angels of our
nature."

To some, it all seems calculated and hubristic, and they will no
doubt continue to detect in his style a self-involved inwardness. But,
to me, it feels like heartfelt homage from someone with a keen sense of
the complexities and commonalities of human experience. On the hopeful
premise that style really does tell us something about the man, this
man--to my ear, at least--is the real deal.

Andrew Delbanco teaches at Columbia, where he is Levi Professor in the Humanities and director of American Studies.

By Andrew Delbanco

SHARE YOUR THOUGHTS

Show all 86 comments

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

86 comments

Man, you describe a really appealing and thoughtful book. A successful review, in that I'm actually going to go the library and get "Dreams from My Father".

- Matt

June 21, 2008 at 7:30pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Obama's work experience in his first book is embellished beyond truth. Please just check it out. It's the main problem with Obama, pure smoke and mirrors.

- Mark Anderson

June 25, 2008 at 12:28am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Bravo for the excellent insights. We are all looking for clues into the qualities Senator Obama will bring to the White House. One crucial issue not properly addressed is how his writing about his unique past: his youth in multi-ethnic, multi-cultural Hawaii, his experience in Indonesia, his travels to Europe, his journey to family in Kenya and what he has made of the dreams of his African father, how all this suggests how he will relate to the world as president and how all this will inform the shaping of his foreign policy.

- Robert LaGamma

June 25, 2008 at 12:44pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

It seems funny to me that he continues to portray white people as racist and blacks as victims. I grew up in the south and never heard any of that from my father, and I am equally sure that every loan denied to a black person was not due to racism. Obama is very selective in both memory and interpretation. Very telling.

- R D P

June 30, 2008 at 10:22pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Very interesting piece. Nicely done.

- ralphnelle

July 7, 2008 at 12:35am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Honestly, when I read Dreams almost six months ago, before I had decided what's what about him, my BS detector went off like a siren.

- susan k. (NYC)

July 7, 2008 at 1:35am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

RDP - Obama absolutely does not potray white people as racist or blacks as victims. You should read the books (or at least one of them) before posting. There is nothing even in the article to suggest that this is how people are potrayed in the 2 books.

- Eli Cohen

July 7, 2008 at 2:02am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

If I make a decision based on this article, I would not vote for Obama. The article concludes that Obama is the real deal! By how? By being inconsistent man who is confused about his own identity and a man who used other people's confusion to his own advantage. Last time I checked, the Chicago that Barack Obama has long been bragging on is the the same dilapidated city full of hates and crimes. I will fight against anyone who will turn America into the style Obama made in Chicago. Chicago is the most dangerous place in America! Thanks to Barack's style of agitation and confusion.

- Jeugenen

July 7, 2008 at 9:23am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Someone please say what writer of literary merit has ever been a good idea for President. Otherwise stated, being a good writer has never been a qualification for President, and indeed is more likely to indicate an incompatibly different set of talents. If the American people elect someone who got notice by writing good sleight of hand, they will find out how it might have worked to have Hemingway as President, or perhaps James Frey. I tremble for the nation.

- MereMortal

July 7, 2008 at 9:42am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

How telling, MereMortal, that you mention "writing good sleight of hand". If you tremble for the nation because a candidate can actually write decently, you might tremble considerably more if that person could NOT express him/herself. Riding in a fighter plane and getting shot down may not be a qualification to be president, but the ability to express oneself clearly and convincingly certainly is.

- bensade

July 7, 2008 at 1:03pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

RE: Mark Anderson's post. You comment was unclear. Would you direct me to some sources where I can "check out his embellishments of his work experience beyond belief". It is hard to take what you say as serious when all it is a job with no substance. I would like to see read the sources of you statement so I can make up my own mind.

-

July 7, 2008 at 1:10pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

My cousin is married to a lovely Latina woman who moved to Virginia a year ago. They still get stared at because they are a "mixed" couple! I've had first hand experience at seeing present day racism. Racism is a disease that still infects America to this day! And Obama isn't a great writer who just so happens to be running for President...he's a great Presidential candidate who also happens to be a great writer...and further more, a great human being who wishes to be President!

- Instinct

July 7, 2008 at 2:24pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Susan K- tell me, please, what in "Dreams" set off your BS detector? And jeugenen, even if I accept your incredible idea that Chicago is the most dangerous place in the nation (somehow I have survived all these years), how exactly did Obama cause that? Seriously, people, you can't just say things without anything to back it up.

- boneill

July 7, 2008 at 3:09pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

A very thoughtful analysis. I would add that Obama is more than dialectical -- he is deeply tolerant of psychological and intellectual contradiction -- and he is trying to teach us to be the same. I wonder to what extent the Asian influence in Hawaii contributes to this quality. His tolerance of contradiction allows him to genuinely respect and honor points of view that he disagrees with and thus makes it easier for those who only half agree with his policies, to support him. This gives him a political advantage. He also gives off a sense that he has seriously considered and weighed opposing perspectives -- thus the means by which he arrives at his opinions seems just. Also, the passage on empathy on page 270 in "Dreams" is amazing. Check it out.

- Timothy Beneke

July 7, 2008 at 3:21pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

your clearly confused, first the CIty of Chicago is run by a mayor. Obama has no roll in the daily decisions made with regards to police, etc etc. 2nd, Chicago isnt even close to the most violent coty per cap in the world. Hell Washington DC is more violent and by your flawed logic I guess that's Bush's fault right? Think before posting, oh wait your a McSame fan...never mind.

- Nathan

July 7, 2008 at 3:24pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Ok, well I'm sorry you wasted your time writing this article. I'm assuming you were either recruited to do it, or you're among the Obama supporters who just CAN'T accept the idea that he's not "the best thing that's happened to American politics." Let me tell you I (a recent law graduate, political moderate who grew up going to Southern Baptist Church in Virginia who now lives in NYC, has had an abortion, and is openly gay) sees the democratic nominee: Barack Obama is basically a decent guy who is very intelligent and charismatic, but uses these traits to manipulate people who can't see through the fact that he doesn't represent America as a whole and is basically offering false hope and not much else. He's a true politician with a CAPTIVATING message, but no real guts to do anything he says he's going to do. He's the guy everyone wants to be friends with, but when asked why, most people can't say. Or they say "hope" or "change" --> THOSE ARE WORDS! And from what I've seen the last few weeks, he's all talk and has done little to hold on to the "changes" we "hope" for. So while I don't mind him in academia representing his views, I don't want him in the White House representing American citizens.

- Independent from NYC

July 7, 2008 at 3:35pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Well, MereMortal, Jefferson was certainly a "writer of literary merit," but your point is well taken (this is coming from a PhD candidate in English Literature, BTW). James Frey (not sure he fits the "literary merit" bill) would be laughable enough, but Hemingway would be downright scary!

- jeremyemilio

July 7, 2008 at 3:58pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

MereMortal oddly writes, "Someone please say what writer of literary merit has ever been a good idea for President." The article to which you are responding has already answered this question. According to this author, the answer is Abraham Lincoln. It's right there at the very beginning of the article: "there is no evident correlation between eloquence and executive leadership (Washington was an indifferent writer, Lincoln a great one)." Of course, you may not be pro-Lincoln, in which case perhaps your point stands.

- on literary merit

July 7, 2008 at 4:01pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Umm... Thomas Jefferson?

- Elliot

July 7, 2008 at 4:08pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

More than eloquence or imagination, we ought to look to integrity and values. Integrity, because we must trust what a man says he will do, and that his motivations are for the best of the country, not his own image. Values, because we need consistent principled behavior from our nation's leader. Personally, from what I can see, Obama frightens me greatly because he excites and encourages people with his enthusiasm and wording, but the content of what he says is either vague or dangerous. Dangerous because his principles stand opposed to personal freedoms and responsibility, and are opposed to capitalism most of the time. Ask yourself what specifically has Obama promised ("change" is not specific), and what specifically has he accomplished in his political career (other than voting 'present' over 110 times) that qualifies him to protect and lead our country...

- daveg

July 7, 2008 at 4:11pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

A "dialectic" is it? Leave it to an academic to come up with such a description of what the rest of us call "brain-farting" -- something that both Obama and the good professor are guilty of.

- Radcliffe

July 7, 2008 at 4:19pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

A "dialectic" is it? Leave it to an academic to come up with such a description of what the rest of us call "brain-farting" -- something that both Obama and the good professor are guilty of.

- Radcliffe

July 7, 2008 at 4:20pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I agree that Obama would make a fine academic. Perhaps he will teach at Harvard after his Senate career is over.

- Al

July 7, 2008 at 4:38pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

No wonder you support him, having left the principles of your youth. Glad you found a supporter.

- history

July 7, 2008 at 4:49pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

why does everything have to be so adversarial/ IS it BECAUSE OUR SOCIETY is dominated, or even run, by lawyers? HOW MANY LIBERALS ARE CRTICAL OF OBAMA AND SUPPORTIVE OF mccain and vice versa/ PRETTY SAD !!

- wechsel

July 7, 2008 at 4:50pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I suggest that you take a second look at his book. It is a gold mine of revelations about Obama's psychological development, internal conflicts, and skewed perspective. What emerges is a guy who is grandiose, enraged, and motivated to humiliate others. The insights begin just a few pages into the book where he describes how he and a friend would sit outside their apartment in Manhattan and verbally abuse rich (white of course) women ordering them to clean after their dogs.

- jose marti

July 7, 2008 at 4:52pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Man, oh, man! With Oprah's literay discernment, now you reveal that Glibama is a literary genius! How far this bufoonery will go, I don't know - but I (and more and more other people) are getting more and more tired of this high pressure sell that Glibama's run is. He's a full blast fraud - and this thing will fail in November.

- misanthropicus

July 7, 2008 at 5:15pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

The Obama worship reflected in the review is typical of what the New Republic has become and is why, after over 20 years, I canceled my subscription.

- James Bryan

July 7, 2008 at 5:19pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I'm not so sure everyone agrees Obama's a great writer... I'm an Ivy trained writer that worked in a literary agency for years as a reader, and I'm not at all impressed. Ho hum, with a tinge of racism and envy. Listen, the media pumps this guy night-and-day, he gets a pass on the most egregious blunders, he's treated with reverence and worship... and yet... he's neck-in-neck with McCain. Good luck with your boy wonder in Nov.

- Lars Rosen

July 7, 2008 at 5:31pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

IfromNYC... Let's assume your "false hope" assertion is true. I would argue that false hope is better than the alternative. The alternative being definite failure with John McCain. If you love the war in Iraq, you'll die for the war in Iran. McCain doesn't understand economics, when the nation is in the midst of an economic slowdown. Yeah, hate on false hope all you want, but it beats the alternative. By the by, how did you get pregnant unintentionally when you are gay? That makes nearly as little sense as the rest of your post.

- Koliver

July 7, 2008 at 5:32pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Mr. Delbanco glosses over the narrowness of Barack Obama's experience and the degree of his self-servingness. These are not fatal traits in a writer, and he makes a good case for the idea that Obama is an outstanding and very evocative writer. Will that make him a good U.S. president if he is elected? Maybe not. Obama's ideas are not new ideas, and they may not even be good ones. I noticed that when Obama touched on the issue of affirmative action, he offered a classic "I feel your pain" sop to poor old whitey. But no plan. I think I have a better idea, and one that will most of these arguments in a day. How about letting anyone who wants to try law school? Or medical school? Or graduate school? If you can make it over the bar, fine. If not, try something else. Let's hear that out of Barack, the man of "change you can believe in" and "new ideas". If Delbanco shows anything, it is how Obama is a product of a controlled world. He doesn't really want to change it, or if he does, it is only through a vast system of publicly sponsored, publicly financed secular ministrations beginning in early childhood that more people can be made fit to undertake the graduate and professional education that made Obama, and his peers, who they are. Here I am, back to my old theme. Obama, I think, is a classic Hyde Park liberal. If he deviates from the Hyde Park community's traditional idea that Scandinavian social democracy represents the ideal form of social organization, it is only in thought, that he does, not in what he think material policy ought to be.

- The Mike Field

July 7, 2008 at 5:38pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I'm not looking for a chief executive of the nation who has a keen ear for inconsistencies and commonalities of human existence. What that makes for is a guy who can spin good patter at a cocktail party. A political leader needs ideas about public policies that work, not ironical attitudes about how most ideas are about as good as any others, because aren't we all flawed and inconsistent? That kind of nonsense doesn't play well outside sophomore seminars. We need grownups to act as statesmen.

- Texan99

July 7, 2008 at 5:42pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Obama is a politician, and I don't agree with some of the compromises he has made lately, but his solutions for America are real and concrete compared to the fantasy and illogical lack of reality offered by McCain.

- Joey

July 7, 2008 at 5:45pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

You would think that not one day of Barak Obama's life went by without something monumentally, earth shatteringly racist happening to him at every turn. His writings come across as over the top as his speeches. I agree with #6 above, the needle on my BS meter went flying past my left ear and may not land for quite some time. He's either the greatest BS artist of the last century, or he truly is the Messiah. I won't be worshiping at the altar of Barak any time soon.

- WRA13

July 7, 2008 at 5:48pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

If every American read Dreams from my Father, Obama would win the election in a walk. While Obama endures the ritual attacks from the left and the right, the article points to an underlying truth that "objective" journalists are unable (or unwilling) to articulate these days: Obama, like Lincoln, is one unique public character.

- Stuart Cadenhead

July 7, 2008 at 5:52pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

What A bunch of BS Obamas book is full of racist statments, and admited that he was a dope head. also adviced that he let no one find the real him, must hide his feelings. HIS woards LIEing is OK to BE DICEITFUL!!! What ever it takes to get the vote, Obama is pathetic!!!!!!!!!

- real world

July 7, 2008 at 6:10pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Academe has everything to do with Obama--in academe, non-threatening , usually quite intelligent black men with highly honed communication skills tend to be lionized by liberal whites eager to prove their anti-racist credentials. What makes Obama different is that he realized this works gorgeously in the political arena as well. I suppose it's one step up from the lionizing of deeply flawed white men because they "talk Texan" or remind folks of their favorite movie character...at least B.O. is well-read and well-spoken even if he, like Bush, is stunningly uninterested in anything but practicing his Hail to the Chief gait. As for the academics? No great damage is done, but you do end up with liberal whites lecturing everyone else on how to be a Good White Person to Poor But Inspiring People of Color.

- Black Female Biracial Academic

July 7, 2008 at 6:41pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

LIFE magazine verifies that no such LIFE magazine story was ever published. You've been hooked and reeled in like a kid in the game fish / sucker. Obama would have been 6 or 7 maybe 8 when when he saw those I Spy and Mission Impossible episodes, and his interpretation of them reads more like something out of a text used in a Black Studies class than it does the thoughts of a 6 year old. You've been fished in on that one as well, I'm guessing. What kind of literary critic can't recognize fiction when he is reading it?

- PrestoPundit

July 7, 2008 at 6:47pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Geez, NYC Independent, your assessment is way too harsh. If you want to know the specifics of Obama's policy proposals and priorities, then go and read them on his website. Don't blame Obama or his supporters if you have bothered to do that. If you read his proposals, for example on pre-K to 12 education reforms, you'll get a sense of the sort of change that Obama is promising. He's for teacher and student accountability, but according to local standards. He's for increasing teacher compensation, but by providing promotion opportunities for excellent teachers, e.g., to become teacher trainers and curriculum and standards developers. All of this gives substance to his call for change "from the bottom up." In contrast, McCain is promising only to keep troops in Iraq and to lower the deficit -- i.e., to put in place massive further cuts in social services, including health care, education, transportation, and infrastructure. Anyone who isn't a millionaire and is "moderately liberal" would be NUTS to vote for John "Bomb, bomb, bomb Iran" McSame. All best wishes, Amy

- Catuskoti

July 7, 2008 at 6:58pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Hey boneil, how come you say other posts must back up their comments with proof...yet BHO admits he uses stories as metaphors , but does not disclose this until we reseach a story, and question him....then it we learn a few more "details"...ie parents in Selma(not), professor of constitutional law (not),spiritual mentor, drug use... BHO tells a yarn in it's broadest context.

- ford

July 7, 2008 at 7:06pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I would say that Teddy Roosevelt was an accomplished writer.

- Boz

July 7, 2008 at 7:14pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Obama is not just a shell. He has substance to it. He is not only words, he has brains behind it. From the abundance of the heart the mouth speaketh. There is no "university of would-be presidents" anywhere in the world to go and learn "how to" become a president. Every president that ever was became one by becoming one. It's like being a father and husband. No schools for these. You become one by becoming one. But you can determine to a great one or a failed one. Barack has all the basic prerequisites and preparations of a great president. Then he has more. Barack is a drum major for sagacity. He is incredible leader and learner. Has anbody noticed he has grown since the campaign started? What we have experienced of him so far is enough to see that Barack backed by his stellar team will be a great president.

- Philip Ephraim

July 7, 2008 at 7:24pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Timothy Beneke: Very well put. You absolutely nail what I might find most appealing about Obama and his approach to analyzing complex issues (especially appealing in contrast to the "with me or against me" aura of our current administration). Gives me utter confidence in his problem-solving and consensus-building abilities. Independent from NYC: Sooner or later, those who dislike Obama will have to get away from the "You're all too stupid to see how he's duping you" argument. It's realllly ineffective. In fact, it tends to make people dig in. You can decide he's untrustworthy, but please realize that I can disagree with you without being a blind idiot hypnotized by the power of the word "change". That is, you should learn a thing or two from Obama: show a willingness to acknowledge both sides of a complicated issue, it will serve to make your own argument more powerful and convincing.

- Nail on the Head

July 7, 2008 at 7:36pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Perhaps Independent Citizen will identify for us exactly who these "American citizens" are that Mr. Obama is not, and therefore presumably cannot "represent," and then supply us with the appropriate alternative, just for the sake of argument. Please, Independent Citizen, be very specific about who "we" are and who "our" representative should therefore be. I'll be very interested in both answers. The most recent example of a president whose story is remotely similar to Obama's is, alas, Bill Clinton, in the sense that both started from very difficult backgrounds and made something of themselves far beyond what their demographics might have predicted--though I don't think it would be hard to argue that Obama's circumstances were considerably more difficult. Both are excellent orators (though I imagine susan k. has a Bill Clinton setting on her BS detector) who are able to inspire, and I have yet to hear a convincing argument against a president who can do so. Clinton was a centrist who sold out the left, put his own name on moderate republican policies, and get some things done. This is what presidents do--they direct the policy of the country by speaking and listenting. For goodness sake, can we please restore depth of understanding and fluency (if not polyvocality) in the White House? I heard Obama again last week being applauded after telling people that they were going to be called upon to do something for the country. If this happens, and it already seemse to be happening with younger voters, the pragmatist in me does not particularly care whether he really "means" it. Please ask yourself whether John McCain (whose track record I have studied and I still can't tell what he stands for) will inspire anyone do to anything other than take a long siesta as he speaks.

- sportdoc62

July 7, 2008 at 7:38pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I can't think of a more compelling reason to vote Republican than this embarassing and manipulative little panegyric. But it's pretty standard fare nowadays for the New Republic Of Obama. The author conjures up every chuckle-headed reason the Left has for embracing an outright cult of personality. Since when does the authorship of two self-promoting books make one qualified for the presidency? For in truth, there is little else he can lay claim to. Not for nothing has the Anglo-American political tradition (the world's most stable and successful)long distrusted self-styled intellectuals in high office. Articles such as this make one suspect that William F. Buckley was right when he said he'd rather be governed by the first 2,000 names in the Boston phone book than by the entire faculty of Harvard. Or Columbia. Deconstruct that.

- fred gill

July 7, 2008 at 7:41pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Barak the Weasel really should use his Kenyan citisenship to move there, get to know his family better, and settle some of his internal conflicts regarding his father and his father's heritage. Why, he might even run for the presidency of that great nation, his family seems to be well enough connected there. Then OUR great nation would not be the victim of his search for an identity, would not be left leaderless in a dangerous world while our president decided who he was or what he believed. Barry, I really think you should go for it. All your really unique third world multicultural experience together with your Chicago street smarts and your Harvard degree has prepared you for leadership where it really counts, in Kenya. We will look for you in the news at 11.

- Louis

July 7, 2008 at 7:44pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

A very thoughtful analysis. I would add that Obama is more than dialectical -- he is deeply tolerant of psychological and intellectual contradiction -- and he is trying to teach us to be the same. I wonder to what extent the Asian influence in Hawaii contributes to this quality. His tolerance of contradiction allows him to genuinely respect and honor points of view that he disagrees with and thus makes it easier for those who only half agree with his policies, to support him. This gives him a political advantage. He also gives off a sense that he has seriously considered and weighed opposing perspectives -- thus the means by which he arrives at his opinions seems just. Also, the passage on empathy on page 270 in "Dreams" is amazing. Check it out. You are deeply conned.Obama is a user. He is a con artist and you have been conned.

-

July 7, 2008 at 7:48pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Good grief! That was nauseating. What sentimental drivel. Reminds me of a novel I mistakenly started but had the good sense to stop reading after 80 pages before I wasted any more time. Obama uses words to manipulate because that is what he learned to do. Smart enough to play on peoples weaknesses. And he's smart enough to cash in on Americans who glue themselves to 'The West Wing' thinking that is reality. It frightens me right down to my very soul thinking Americans may well elect this man to the White House. Maybe America can survive a bad Presidency now and then. But now NOW. Not in this time. America needs LEADERSHIP, not manipulation.

- Nancy Cohen

July 7, 2008 at 8:09pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I'm an independent who has read both Obama's books. I'd rather see him as a social commentator or literary lion than chief executive officer of the biggest organization in the world: the federal government. Being interesting and thoughtful doesn't translate to commander in chief or leader of the free world at this portentious time in history. I urge all to read his books. You will learn that he compares the psychological pathology of terrorists to gang members on Chicago's south side who erupt with anger and violence because of privation, humiliation and lack of opportunity. Holy cow. Somebody tell him that terrorists come from all walks of life, including the middle class and well-to-do....it's not about race and poverty. But this is how liberals think: we just have to GIVE THEM MORE. Somebody tell him that wind and solar power will not put cars on the road and airplanes in the air; transportation accounts for 70% of our fuel needs. Somebody tell him that taxing the hell out of individuals and especially corporations will kill growth, investment and jobs. Somebody tell him that Iran and North Korea are in a race to get nuclear weapons. Somebody tell him that free trade may be bad for unions but it's critical to the economy. Barack Obama will make us feel better about our race problem, but he'll be worse than Jimmy Carter was for the country.

- Dan-O-Dan

July 7, 2008 at 8:35pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"THOSE ARE WORDS" How would they answer a question without words? I think Delbanco did a great job with this article, and despite what some of these responses might suggest, was aware of the limits of what you could conclude based on his writing. He wasn't analyzing Obama as a whole, he was saying what the writing reveals about the man, from his perspective in particular. I do think depth of thought is an important quality for a president, but isn't always expressed through writing and isn't always sufficient.

- DHI

July 7, 2008 at 9:14pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Independent, this article posits that Obama is a person capable of sorting through complex situations with many shades of grey. He is gifted when it comes to analyzing instances where there is no simple "right" or "wrong" but many rights and wrongs. Might that be a reason beyond "Hope" or "Change" to support Obama?

- RJ

July 7, 2008 at 9:26pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Very interesting article. It's amazing how people jump to one conclusion or another regarding Obama. He has a captivating message, but his deeper policy suggestions are intriguing as well. It's far more deep than "hope" or "change." If you believe in something as strongly as Obama seems to than it's not manipulation. It's more like leadership prescence which has been lacking for decades. I highly suggest people keep studying both candidates.

- Morgan

July 7, 2008 at 10:13pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Hey, Jeugenen...Have you ever been to Chicago? I live in the city. "The most dangerous place in America?" Certainly some neighborhoods are plagued with crime, but I live in a ridiculously diverse neighborhood, probably 40 languages are spoken within a short walk of my home. We don't even bother to lock our doors; I feel a lot safer here than I did in the fancy North Shore suburb where I used to live. "Dilapidated??" OK, the el is not great, but much of the city positively gleams. I always feel pride when I see foreign tourists taking it in. It is a flawed but great city, and I feel lucky to live here and to be raising our young son here.

- opus132

July 7, 2008 at 10:18pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

It's not our job to interpret Obama. It's his job to be clear about who he is, where he's been, and what he would do as president. On all three counts, he has come up miserably short. It is the very fact of his being a relatively blank canvas that allows people to conceive of him in any and every way. Whether those conceptions are true or even have any basis in fact is another story altogether. President of the USA is the most important and demanding job on the face of the planet. Do you really think we should gamble with it on an obfuscating, inexperienced person with no legislative accomplishments in his chosen field?

- John Chilcott

July 7, 2008 at 10:22pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Independent, how can any one person "represent America as a whole"? What could that even mean? It seems to me that one of Obama's strengths is his ability to mobilize a large segment of America in response to his vision, which after all, is what we expect of a leader. To cynical and jaded people, visionary leaders are bound to look like manipulators. It's true that HOPE and CHANGE are words, but they are also concepts and ideals, and at the very least if you don't talk about them, they will never happen.

- Ed Zeldin

July 7, 2008 at 10:28pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

This artical is complete tripe. Just what the heck has Obama ever accomplished? He resume includes the Illinois state senate and one lousy year in the Senate. This guy is politician selling whatever the public will buy to be elected. The real question is what the heck has he ever accomplished?

- Gina

July 7, 2008 at 10:40pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Vaclav Havel, Thomas Jefferson, Abraham Lincoln.

- jjw

July 7, 2008 at 10:55pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

A smart man once said in reference to politicians, "Don't listen to what they say to win the nomination/office - the only way to judge them is by looking at what they did in their past political experience. That's it. Throw everything else out." Obama is smart, charismatic and can give a great speech when the opportunity presents itself. He may even be a great writer. However, when someone is applying for a job in our company - we interview them on what they did in their past positions. - What did they achieve in the real world, that is relevant to the position they are applying for? This only makes sense. I am leaning towards thinking Obama is very short on real world experience for POTUS. Why? Because he does not have prior Governor experience. He has never run a state. - Does he have Governor's experience like Bill Clinton, Romney, Huckabee or has he even run a city (New York) like Giuliani? No, he has not. Neither has McCain nor has Hillary. In my opinion, this may disqualify all three of them. The reason I think Governor experience is so important is that it gives a candidate real world experience with balancing budgets and running a mini USA. It's like running the USA on a smaller scale. And we can measure the candidates performance. *Do we cut education? *Can we give the Police a raise? *What can we do to improve state unemployment rates? *Our crime rate is increasing - do we have the money for more officers? *How can we raise more money to open a new school in this district? *Our state came in 42nd in test scores - how can we improve our ranking? Where can we get the money to make the improvements? *Should we raise the property taxes? etc., etc. Without this type of experience - you can have all sorts of grand ideas about improving things - and your ideas may actually have merit. However, in order to FUND your ideas you are going to have to have the money to do it. - If you are not operating on a large surplus - you will then, either have to tax more and/or cut spending in other areas to obtain the necessary funds. It's a fact of life. Yes, I know, George Bush had Governor's experience and aside from having a 30% approval rating he also added a couple trillion dollars to the deficit. Ouch! This is true and I'm certainly not gonna defend Bush - I never voted for him in the first place. -- But, just because Bush flopped and he was a former Governor, that does not mean we just go out and vote for just anyone for the position regardless of past experience. Nick Saban was a great college football coach but, when he went to the NFL and the Miami Dolphins he lost more games than he won and is now back in the college ranks. Do you think Wayne Huizenga - the owner of the Dolphins was thinking, "Geez, that great college coach who won a college national championship with LSU flopped with us in the NFL... hmmm, maybe experience is overrated... this high school coach talks a good game but, does not have any college or pro experience - well, geeze - I like him, he talks a good game and he's smart - well maybe I ought to just give him a try and let him coach my $700 million franchise." No, of course not. I am not a fan of Bill Clinton - never have been - however, I will give credit where it is due. At the end of his presidency Clinton reported a surplus of $559 billion. Now,that's change I can believe in!!! It is good to be open minded when thinking about politics - I know I have radically changed my opinions on candidates and issues as I have learned new information. At this point in time, I believe successful Govenor/Mayor past experience to be critical for anyone running for POTUS. It seems to make sense. But, as always, I am willing to listen to alternative opinions on this...

- something 2 think about

July 7, 2008 at 10:55pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

independent[?] in nyc... very insightful, not to want obama for pres...except, of course for the part about mccain as the alternative you apparently do want...that's the opposite of insightful...or worse.

- JP, milltown, nj

July 7, 2008 at 11:03pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Obama claims his parents met 4 years after he was born in that book, LMAO. It's B/S.

- Ashley

July 7, 2008 at 11:08pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Sorry, I've heard most of his books on tape and he's a fraud. He's been extremely influenced by Rev. Wright and Michelle and doesn't want what's best for the country. Heck, some of the neighborhoods he worked in Chicago are in a shambles now because of his "ideas". He's only going to piss off MoveOn, Kos, and Huff by moving to the right. If you don't stand for something, you fall for everything. No thank you, NObama.

- Rich G.

July 7, 2008 at 11:29pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Obama's books are cliche-filled and full of anecdotal tripe. Literature? Hardly. He's certainly not close to Lincoln or Jefferson. He's a poor man's JFK, and Ted Sorensen did most of JFK's speech writing. How about something original from Obama? Not going to find it in what he's written.

- PoliticalPuck

July 7, 2008 at 11:34pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

A better judgement of his fitness to be President is to look at the people he has chosen to surround himself with when not in the public eye. Yes, he writes well but he also subscribes to (or is shamefully silent on) a racist church that preaches hate. He sees nothing wrong with "hanging with" a man who openly wishes he could have murdered more innocent Americans in the name of revolution and now seeks to subvert the same nation through manipulation of the teaching profession. Might we not more accurately judge the heart of this candidate through his ever shifting positions than through his claimed literary talent?

- Steve W

July 7, 2008 at 11:35pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Many people are fascinated with obamanation because he is a simple of change

-

July 8, 2008 at 12:12am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Thank you for the wonderful book reviews. I'm actually in middle of reading "dreams". Obama is a good man, stop hating

- J from TX

July 8, 2008 at 12:31am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Professor Delbanco's reading the books and the style with so little reference to the man's record of actions strikes me as methodologically problematic: OK, fine for James Joyce (perhaps), but we're trying to decide if this man will be a suitable President. On that score, I analyze his highly wrought sense of himself and his identity as a talented man of letters *in combination with* the fact that he was impatient with Senate procedure and his low seniority status, believed his own clippings after the convention speech, and jumped ahead of the pack and some sort of traditional sense of necessary experience and, yes, precedence within the party, in order to declare a candidacy that was based on his idea of himself and an imposition of that idea of himself on the way the world actually works. In other words, a very familiar academic type: "I know better how things should go, and I can dominate the debate with my eloquence." Thus do academic fads prevail, spurred on by charismatic speakers and writers (Derrida, Greenblatt, etc.) until they die of their own emptiness and ultimate disconnection from empirical reality and testable research. I used to be like that myself, an academic ready to make the world over in my own image--but sadder, older, wiser, I realize now that there's no substitute for experience, because the immutable fact of other minds and other incompatible visions requires us actually to act and work things out with other people in order to make progress. Obama's premise is ultimately that he is cleverer and thus can manipulate us more effectively; the unreal power of the modern American media, an environment that suits him so well, contributes to the illusion. But it is an illusion. I don't even think he can win, he's so obviously abstracted; but if he does, the gap between his rhetorical promises and the reality of governing will probably turn people against him quickly. Yet another tragedy of ambition. I hope I'm wrong, because he'd be a better president than McCain, probably; but I'm a bit older than Obama, and I've seen this movie before.

- Kevin E.

July 8, 2008 at 12:42am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Timothy Beneke wrote above..."His tolerance of contradiction allows him to genuinely respect and honor points of view that he disagrees with..." Why, you've touched the very heart of the problem, Timothy. Judging from those whom he has surrounded himself with for many, many years, I suspect he would disagree with many of my points of view. Many. ....despite the first several "reeducation" speaches he has delivered...so far.

- StyroPhome

July 8, 2008 at 1:46am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"Obama is more than dialectical -- he is deeply tolerant of psychological and intellectual contradiction" I couldn't agree more: and his actions of the past couple of weeks - campaign finance, FISA, Iraq, abortion, etc. - have convinced me that Obama is deeply tolerant of contradiction too! The problem is, I have no idea of what Obama would do as president, and I'm not willing to consign the next four years of our nation's history to someone as opaque as Obama.

- Mike

July 8, 2008 at 2:13am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Interesting that you quoted the basketball passage first: this blew me away when I read it in "Dreams," and has remained with me as one of the most striking passages in the book. Great writing that perfectly captures an incredibly elusive atmosphere -- the trance of playing bball.

- C. Neiman

July 8, 2008 at 4:43am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

The "skinny kid with the funny name" who has surfaced as "the fairytale candidate" - and burst on the American political scene to prevail as the Democratic candidate who will seek to become America's 44th President - has not reached this historic moment in American history by chance, by accident, or even by default. My human brothers and sisters living inside the American Republic today, and outside of it's borders, it is important for each of you to understand this 'angelic extraterrestrial piece of information' about the presence of the junior senator, of African (and European) heritage from the State of Illinois in the 2008 American Presidential election. Senator Obama is a highly evolved spiritual being who has been appointed by history, annointed by destiny, and chosen by the Cosmic Spiritual Hierachy: to serve as America's next president. Every American who loves their beloved nation, who truly cares about the future of America, who genuinely cares about the welfare and wellbeing of their fellow Americans, who cares about the lives and future of the other members of the human race living on the surface of the blue planet today, who cares about protecting and preserving the different Nature kingdoms, and Queendoms, and the multitude of different lifeforms living there - and who cares about sustaining a healthy environment for all of life to thrive on as temporary tenants of Mother Earth in the future – has the right, responsibility, and ability to elect an American President with an inspiring, unifying, and enlightening vision of the future for Americans, and for the rest of the nations of different people sharing life on this plundered, poisoned, depleted, injured, and desecrated planet with them today. Borack Obama has showned himself to be someone who has the conviction of purpose, eloquence of words, depth of insight, clarity of vision, strength of character, and soundness of integrity to unify that divided nation; and inspire his fellow Americans to aspire to unite and come together to work honestly, diligently, respectfully, carefully, and truthfully for the greater good of all Americans, for the greater good of all the other nations of people, and all life forms, living, struggling, and dying on the surface of blue planet today. Few of you are aware as yet that the fairytale candidate now running for the American Presidency is the same soul who lived, worked, and lost his mortal live as the American Civil Rights champion named Martin Luther King Jr - who has returned to the blue planet as a "walk in" to finish the noble and great work he started: to help make "the Promise Land" a reality on this planet for all life forms living here in the not too distant future. I invite each of you to see a chapter size "Tribute to Senator Borack Obama" that i wrote and posted on my website called aplanetundersiege.dom to gain a body of insights that reveals compelling details about Senator Obama's true identity as Martin Luther King Jr. and why his presence back on the blue planet is truly historic in so many incredible, astonishing, and inspirational ways. Avatar Galextra

- Avatar Galextra

July 8, 2008 at 5:44am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Yes once again Obama is the ANTI-CHRIST, who has come to destroy America, get over it, the election will play out the way it is suppose too> The American people will get what they deserve

- silly

July 8, 2008 at 6:35am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Read the book, enjoyed the piece. Lots of the critical comments seem to be based on presumptions such as "He couldn't be who he seems because no politician ever is." Or: "This has to be BS, because it's not what politicians normally say."Or even: "Writing is only thinking, and thought has nothing to do with action." The last eight years might serve as an object lesson in what happens when critical thought is banished from policy-making.

- tsammani

July 8, 2008 at 7:11am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I agree with independent from NYC. I also agree with the writer's last point "To some, it all seems calculated and hubristic, and they will no doubt continue to detect in his style a self-involved inwardness." Obama has used his oratorical style and his writing skills to mask fundamental vulnerabilities in his candidacy, namely his lack of real accomplishments, (name one - that he wrote two books? huh?), and lack of experience. The change mantra is just a cover for that and gives him an easy out when people doubt him. He can just point and say "not everyone gets it yet..." Sorry. this democrat saw it a year ago, has patiently waited to be proven wrong and with each day Obama himself proves I'm right (as is Independent from NYC). Obama is a super intelligent, well-meaning guy with alot of chasima but there is no there there... Of course, next to McCain he's a breath of fresh air...

- Debs0711

July 8, 2008 at 7:24am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Well, I'm sorry that Independent from NYC wasted her time writing her post. It's nothing but WORDS! (All "words" -- whether written or spoken -- can be degraded as "just words." Even her precious Bible is "just words.") What bullshit, calling herself a "moderate." A Southern Baptist who grew up in Virginia who is opposed to him for president because he "doesn't represent America as a whole." What she's apparently trying to say is that, because Obama isn't lily-white, he can't possibly represent the white majority in America. She doesn't sound like an independent at all . . . more like a racist Republican who offers nothing but false analysis and not much else.

- Tom of Virginia

July 8, 2008 at 8:59am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"he doesn't represent America as a whole" I'm confused as to what it would require for someone to do this. Would your ideal presidential candidate be rich, poor, white, black, latino, asian, Christian, Muslim, racist, good, evil, gay, straight, and atheist? Does John McCain represent America as a whole? Or would he just represent the white protestant plurality, at the expense of the non-white protestant majority? Or is it not a matter of identity politics at all? (Because how could it be.) The President can be only one man, standing for himself but, ideally, supporting us all.

- Katie

July 8, 2008 at 9:59am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Reality check?

- Mars

July 8, 2008 at 11:56am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Dear Andrew, Terrific insights and analysis. I was also impressed with Obama's search for his identity by reading so much of the African-American literature with which he was not familiar. After trying to understand the experience of the inner city and African Americans with different expriences than his own, he came to his own conclusions and embraced his own identity. For me, it indicated how he would approach other issues, i.e. read relevant materials, analyze them thorougly and thoughtfully, then form an opinion based on evidence and insight. That is why I feel strongly that he is the best candidate for President. Best regards, Meredith Palmer HRClass'73

- Meredith Palmer

July 8, 2008 at 6:31pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Andrew, your correct, Obama is the "real deal".....A whole hearted liberal socialist who believes government is the cure all for our nations woes.....

- matthew P

July 10, 2008 at 12:03pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

80% of these posts seem motivated by outright racism or seem to be product of people who are hostile to anything any a democratic candidate would say. Since when is anyone discredited because they are articulate? Do all the haters hoild McCain to the same level of scrutiny or vitriol?

- Greg

July 12, 2008 at 2:09am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I think that people go as over the top in criticizing Barack as they do in lauding him. We're down to two candidates now. Both of them have huge egos and hubris in spades (as do all presidential candidates and presidents -- it's absurd to think there's a successful politician out there who doesn't). The decision now for each of us is, between the two of them, who would make the best president? I rooted for Obama in the primary because I despised the Clintons and felt it was imperative to get them off the national stage. I felt more unsure about who I would vote for in the general because I happen to like McCain. But as I pay more attention to him, I have to say he's not impressing me one bit, and I'm seriously worried about his lack of organization, and his lack of knowledge or interest in anything but waging war. So, as imperfect as I'm sure Obama is,he impresses me as more competent, more intelligent, more curious, more measured, and more thoughtful. And after the last seven years, I think we can agree that intelligent, curious, and thoughtful are desirable qualities in a president.

- elizabeth

July 12, 2008 at 11:05am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

While McCain didn't write his books himself (which is fine, but makes a direct literary comparison to the Democratic nominee less practical), it's striking how many of them focus on heroic patriots of the past who fit his current definition of patriotism--those who have sacrificed for their country, almost always by military service. I've been puzzled by that formulation in the campaign because it seems to suggest most voters (any non-vets) are not patriotic. But if the books he's chosen to collaborate on are an indication, maybe that isn't a strange, specific-to-Obama formulation of patriotism, but simply an accurate reflection of how he defines the term.

- Deborah

July 12, 2008 at 3:33pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

MereMortal: Thomas Jefferson, just to name one. The article already dwells on Lincoln at length. And then there is Theodore Rooseveldt. There's three examples of great writers who became better-than-average presidents. As for James Frey, I though we were discussing writers 'of literary merit,' not Barnes&Noble cumshots.

- Michael Mussman

July 12, 2008 at 5:32pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Obama, Pelosi, Reid, ... are much more dangerous than McCain, Pelosi, Reid, ....

- old91A10

July 12, 2008 at 11:42pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Although in the past I have found Obama's central campaign message for "change" to be worrisome in its simplicity, I am comforted by Delbanco's analysis of a truly nuanced mind. While I realize that moral and intellectual complexity is not always popular for a candidate in Obama's position, after 8 years of the exact opposite, I, too, am ready for Change.

- Alex Gibson

July 13, 2008 at 2:14am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Sadly, both candidates are under-qualified. Any American in the small subset who will actually vote, chooses a "better than" candidate. "The best" is never an option. There is nothing in Obama's experience or training to suggest he knows how to guide the U.S. through the financial crises that will attend the collapse of consumer debt and municipal bond bubbles. Or that he is qualified to help redress the trade imbalance, or restore fiscal sanity in Washington. It is doubtful that he truly grasps the magnitude of the problem because his economic proposals are cautious and small-bore. Sadder still, John McCain is worse. On this score, McCain's public utterances are an embarrassment (Cutting 'Pork Barrel' spending won't make much of a dent in the deficit) and his advisors help craft the very policies that got us into this mess, including the repeal of the Glass-Stegal Act and the shameful bankruptcy "reform." Before the S&L crisis in the 80's, the bankers had a joke: "Heads, I win. Tails the government loses." Same novel, new chapter. McCain would continue the traditional conservative looting of the government. Where was all this concern for experience and substance when George. W. Bush was running? I recall paeans to Bush's punctuality and snappy, corporate dress code. Someone, somewhere probably praised him for his penmanship too. Hardly anyone pointed out that the governor of Texas is a weak office, with little responsibility, and that he had completed just one four-year term. Campaign rhetoric is never a good predictor of actual governance. A better indicator is who are the candidate's backers and advisors? In McCain's case, all thought the Iraq War was a neat idea, and most have only lately acknowledged that global warming is a serious crisis. I will vote confidently for Obama, not because he's the 'real thing' but because he is clearly 'better than."

- Mae Zing

July 23, 2008 at 10:39pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Good writer and great Prime Minister--Winston Churchill.

- Steve

August 28, 2008 at 2:10am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

SHARE HIGHLIGHT

0 CHARACTERS SELECTED

TWEET THIS

POST TO TUMBLR

SHARE ON FACEBOOK

Close