Said Barack Obama to Oprah Winfrey, as quoted in
Maureen Dowd's TimesSelect column.
"And it gobbles you up because the tendency is for people to want to see you perform and say what they want to hear, as opposed to you trying to stay in touch with, you know, that deepest part of you, that kernel of truth inside."
Dowd aptly quips:
Doesn’t he see that when you express this skepticism on Oprah it is not skepticism at all?
It almost seems unfair to quote that quote. Maybe the things said inside the Oprah confessional should not be repeated outside of it. Can you even parse that quote into something that makes sense?
Politics blended with celebrity... gobbles you up?
What was he thinking?
Now I'm speaking to a lot of women, so a cooking metaphor seems good. Politics blended with celebrity...
mmm... yummy. But then he loses focus on the possibility of a metaphor -- food shouldn't be gobbling
you up -- as he goes for the gooshy emotion. He's getting gobbled up! Yikes! It's all those
people who want you to be want they want, when you're trying to
stay in touch with ... with what? ...
yourself, presumably. But let's
Oprahfy it... that
deepest part of you, that kernel of truth inside.
Any intelligent person serving up those words --
here, have a kernel! -- has got to be thinking
oh, what garbage, but this is the sort of thing you're supposed to say here, to prove there really is something to you, some core of authenticity. There's a big, roiling phony world of people trying to ruin the real you, and what you've got to do is steady yourself and go deep inside, because, of course, there's a
kernel in there.
Mmm... yum. Phony authenticity. My favorite.
पोस्ट्स
१७ टिप्पण्या:
Maybe the things said inside the Oprah confessional should not be repeated outside of it.
Priest-penitent privilege? Yet another example of the Church of Oprah.
Did he bite his lower lip, drop a tear or two, or otherwise Clintonize his performance? Do we care?
I liked this op-ed a lot. I'm not as angry with Obama as some liberals, especially for his "Democrats need to be more tolerant of people of faith" speech. He's got his eyes on the prize, and he's not going to say or do anything remotely controversial until it's absolutely necessary. Ezra Klein has it right in this piece.
What David Brooks has to say about who the Democrats should nominate for '08 could not matter less. If anything, it should be taken as a contrary indicator.
Which among you could pray better at the Altar of Oprah? Tough many have tried, few are chosen.
My last comment doesn't make sense as I wrote it.
I mean although I'm not angry with Obama for staying out of the fray and generally being a featherweight, he is absolutely a featherweight.
I'm sick of the conventional wisdom that Democrats need to sugar coated candidates for mid-American consumption. And thus far Obama is just the sugar coating itself.
The Chicago media have their heads jammed firmly up Obama's rear. When I ask why people are already talking about him running for the top spot when he hasn't really done anything yet, they look at me like I just whipped out a white hood and lit a cross on fire.
This post made me laugh out loud, as did the "Is law really this exciting?" This is why I like your blog.
"I liked this op-ed a lot. I'm not as angry with Obama as some liberals, especially for his "Democrats need to be more tolerant of people of faith" speech. He's got his eyes on the prize, and he's not going to say or do anything remotely controversial until it's absolutely necessary."
So, he's going to cynically use people's religious faith until he gets into even higher office, whereupon he will tell us all he had his fingers crossed when he called for "tolerance"?
I'm not saying that politicians on the other side don't do this (no one is better at cynically using faith to win elections like the GOP), but is this supposed to make me like him?
"I'm sick of the conventional wisdom that Democrats need to sugar coated candidates for mid-American consumption. And thus far Obama is just the sugar coating itself."
So when the media has finished licking all the sugar off Obama, what will be underneath? What's your party's hidden agenda, Feindoyle? Afraid that if they actually say what they're going to do that they'll surely lose in a democratic election (as radicals usually do when they say what they really think)? Are you and Kos going to Liebermanize poor Obama for straying too far into the sphere of rational normalcy?
The secret agenda has been summarized pretty well here.
[Yes, that's two links in a row to the American Prospect. I do read other things, but I'm prepared for accusations of cocoonery.]
I've watched Obama a bit since he was first elected to the Illinois legislature. He's a pretty decent, pretty intelligent, pretty centrist, pretty good politician. None of that really set him apart. What sets him apart is having a black African father.
He is also pretty inexperienced. I don't know, given say, Jimmy Carter, that that is any barrier to being President. (So long as you don't mind getting another Carter type presidency.)
He is also, as are almost all of us, somewhat a creature of the cultural into which he found himself born. I don't think we should be surprised (especially given his relative youth, politically speaking) that he quite often reflects the expectations of that culture.
Would he make a good president? At this point, how can we know? If all you want is what I have listed above, then why not? If you want more, it would be good for him to somehow show us more.
And, doyle, I had kinda hoped that the link would have provided less Bush-bashing and more solid policy choices and less ideological platitudes.
Do you have a link that actually says what Democrats would do if they gain control of the government? I truly would like to see something more than the pap handed out by Nancy Pelosi. Surely the oldest political party in the world has more to offer than her.
This is Pelosi's "first 100 hours" package.
The direct negotiation with pharmaceutical companies in particular is staggeringly popular, as seen here.
I, for one, can't wait to give the Democrats a chance to fail. They've demonstrated failure so often in the past, and I think they've really honed their skills while muttering and twitching on the fringes these past 6 years. Forget about all those scary, pesky issues, Democrats! If you win the House(s), jump right to impeachment, withdrawl of troops, investigations! You know you want to! Shake off that sugar and let's see what you're really made of!
Remember, it's not about governance, it's about settling scores!
I'm guessing you aren't interested in Obama's cookie recipes, either.
MMF: Cool!! You respond to being called out for arguing by assertion by admitting you did what you were accused of. Then you try to wave that off by making a further assertion that you'll not engage in an ad hominem. Do you think attempting to change the subject that way is more an example of begging the question or argument by ignorance?
;->=
Unlike anyone else who might run, she's gone toe-to-toe with Putin, possibly speaking Russian, and she also has face-to-face experience negotiating on our behalf with many important world leaders. I'm sure it's a real delight sitting down with China's leaders, too. Sens. Obama and Clinton have zero foreign policy experience, in a leadership capacity or otherwise.
Neither did "President" Tipsy McStagger.
Of course, the other thing is, Rice has failed in all the endeavors mentioned.
Maybe she can bite her lower lip and drop a tear or two in an interview with Oprah...
Obama isn't going to be president. He might very likely be the Democrat nominee selected by Hillary! for vice-president in an effort to keep the African-American vote reliably Democrat (what self-respecting dude would ever volunteer for the self-castrating job of being Hillary!'s vp...? Yikes!) for yet another election, but no one in the Democrat Party is going to let Sen. Barak anywhere close to real world responsibilities - and not because of his race either - but because he isn't reliably Left enough. Yet.
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा