I think that having people "project their best thoughts and hopes" was rather the point of the campaign. More accurately, it was to have people believe that Mr. Obama stood for whatever they wanted him to stand for (thus the enthusiasm that Arnold says any candidate requires, which to those who disagree appears to be demagogy.

I take something less negative from the article as a whole -- I see more a sense of wonder at one's own past from these people, not anger and not really regret. It is like what happens once you grow older than movie stars -- they cease to be hazy magical people (Boagart, Bacall) and are simply kids who won a different kind of lottery (DiCaprio? , Damon, Affleck). You don't think less of them (and I didn't read people as thinking less of Obama). But you do realize that destinies are not set in stone, and within the frameworks that have been imposed upon us, we have made choices.

-- AndrewCase - 11 Feb 2009

• You did fine. I retitled the topic, because ObamaArticle was very general and not clear. The new title shows that the topic is a talk page, where ideas can be generated before being refactored, and that the topic of the talk is Judith Warner's piece on the Obama family. I added a link to the piece. I also gave the topic a proper parent, for the index, by attaching it to the course root.

• On what does that belief rest? Given the standing with the voters of the outgoing administration and the economic situation as the election approached, most observers would have said that a Democratic victory would not depend much on the personal attributes of the candidates. Does the exit polling data give you something for your argument? Or is your belief grounded in some other evidence?

• Could you explain what you mean a little more? Your mouth is dissatisfied because (1) people have more complex feelings about Obama than they used to; (2) Judith Warner should be more with the program; (3) you're disappointed that people have more complex feelings about Obama than you thought they did; (4) people shouldn't be comparing themselves to a demigod like him; (5) something else?

-- AaronShepard - 11 Feb 2009

<--/commentPlugin-->

-- AaronShepard - 11 Feb 2009

<--/commentPlugin-->

I hope I am doing this correctly, although somehow I doubt it. Still, I felt compelled to post regarding the article concerning the effect the Obama family has had on people.

One of the repeated ideas surrounding the Obama campaign was that this was more than politics. The campaign was described as a movement, and more than any political figure (at least in my lifetime), Obama really transcended a lot of what a normal politician would represent. Many admirers described him in generalities, or on personal terms, while not much was discussed about the actual politics behind the man. Generally these 'movement' candidates fizzle (see Dean, Howard), but Obama kept going strong, probably for a variety of reasons (eloquence, timing, race, personal story, etc.). In the end, I believe he won mainly because of what people felt he was as a person.

Generally, people have seemed to project their best thoughts and hopes on Obama; this makes sense, since clearly a candidate of pessimism isn't going to win much support. Still, the fact that this article had a clearly negative context was fascinating to me, and seems to speak most to the fragile psyche of (American?) people. By getting so caught up in the accomplishments of one person, the subjects in the article then reflect on their own inadequacies. Where does this instinct come from? Our competitive culture? Maybe I am reading this wrong, but this article definitely left a sour taste in my mouth.