Tannishblog

I’ve been wondering lately about Barack Obama’s decision. Will he or won’t he run for president. The Washington Post seems to be smoothing the red carpet for him with a summary of Barack’s experience. I guess that’s the danger of entering the national political circus looking like and undergrad. People will question your leadership credentials in way they, well, haven’t lately with anyone else.

The real question is this: Is America ready for a black presidential candidate? Let’s leave aside the possibility, however remote is may be today, of a black president. Can the guy bring all his charisma to bear to overcome covert and overt expressions of racism?

Is the money there? Black leaders and white uber-liberals will turn our en masse, but that’s the race thingy again.

Will he have mass appeal? I’m sure he’ll have Chicago and Illinois in his pocket, assuming the Domcratic Party wants to join the festivities. But hat about - again the race issue - the deep south? The Christian Conservatives? Hey, I’m not calling the CC racists, but I cannot recall them backing a non-Caucasian for any post, ever. If I’m wrong, comment.

Then there’s my concern, posted here, about some nutjob doing a Bobby Kennedy on the guy. ‘Nuff said.

Regardless on anyone’s views, Obama is the quintessential Media Darling: eloquent, photogenic, dynamic. He’s still fresh enough to be a pseudo-outsider in regards to the beltway, thereby affording him underdog status. A lot of attention is going to be focused on how much money he can or cannot gather, whose pitching in, and how it compares to the war chests of Hillary, McCain or Edwards - whoever, really.

The Media is going to focus on the man, not his words. Their going to show the cult of personality, not the issues on the minds of Americans. All fluff, no substance: Obamathon 2007. Get your tee-shirt.

The NY Times today had an interesting "Quote of the Day:"

"This is all being made up as we go along. It is difficult to apply the old ways campaigns were run in late 20th century to this new wide-open citizen-led politics."  SIMON ROSENBERG, of the New Democrat Network, on politicians’ use of the Internet.

Referring to an article on the recent trend of hiring prominent bloggers for  presidential campaigns, this quote obstensibly covers the clash of cultures between the loose-cannon, almost-anarchistic blogosphere and the tighty-whitey stodginess of political presentations. Interesting. But that’s not what the article is really about.

John Edwards came under fire last week for hiring two feminist bloggers, Amanda Marcotte of Pandagon and Melissa McEwan, aka Shakespeare’s Sister. These ladies are well loved in their communities, stellar bloggers, and - and this is the sticking point - highly opinionated. Both have said disparaging remarks about religious institutions and the political stances they own.

In some of their online writings, Ms. Marcotte and Ms. McEwan used vulgar language to characterize religious conservatives and Roman Catholic teachings on birth control, homosexuality and the virgin birth.

On her personal blog, Shakespeare’s Sister, Ms. McEwan had referred to conservative Christians as “Christofascists.” On the Pandagon blog site, Ms. Marcotte had said that the Catholic Church’s prohibition on the use of birth control forced women to bear “more tithing Catholics.”

This week, William A. Donohue, the president of the Catholic League for Religious and Civil Rights, had called for Mr. Edwards to dismiss the women. Stunned to learn that he did not, Mr. Donohue said in an interview Thursday, “The bloggers are no longer the issue. Edwards is the issue.”

To my jaded mind it speaks volumes about the sensitivity and fear many religious leaders have about open debate within their sphere of influence. To exemplify this fear we only need to re-read the above clip. Mr, Donohue didn’t get what he wants, so he responds with what amounts to a declaration of war. If he was more genuine, he would scowl and stamp a foot like the petulant inner-child he appears.

To appease the accompanied media frenzy, Mr. Edwards extracted a public apology from his bloggers. Unfortunately this give credence to such sinister tactics folks like Mr. Donohue love to wield.

In deciding to retain Ms. Marcotte and Ms. McEwan, (John Edwards) extracted public apologies from them for some of their work and a promise from them to maintain a civil tone while in his employ.

Give me a break. Both women are team blogging with like-minded friends. Nothing is stopping their co-authors from ripping out. Okay, they don’t talk about work during the campaign. Any blogger worth her keyboard knows work-whine is poor subject matter. Not only are these self-renouncements hollow and desultory, they will affect no change in the actions of offended parties like Mr. Donohue. The damage has been done.

So: we have a convergence of the grass roots political blognation with old-school political aspirations. We also have a divergence of passionate free speech from a culture of stymied rigidity as exemplified by religious leaders.

What do these conflicts have in common? A palpable shift in power is accelerated by the unpredictable and (so far) uncontrollable Internet. Politicians are trying to ride the wild bull, fundamentalist leaders are trying to kill it. Both institutions fear this shift and anyone fears change. Both institutions have much to lose if they cannot make this new beast behave. Politics will attempt redirection through assimilation. Religions will do what they’ve always done: kill the infidels.