Obama -Clinton Mania Really Isn't

There is a law against screaming "fire" in a theater, (Fifth circuit court of Appeals [CLICK]), and we all accept it because it makes sense, if you panic people others may get hurt as a result of the panic. Likely you will remember the horror of the Soccer matches where the crowds went wild and people were killed [CLICK], and now we are told that at the speeches of Mr. Obama, people swoon and pass out [CLICK] which must create an atmosphere of wonder in all, when was the last time that in the United States a speaker addressed the issues of politics so fervently that listeners passed out? Countering this the Clinton camp has an adroit remark that such content would be great if it were original and claim that Mr. Obama is stealing material from others [CLICK]. All this innuendo and charge-counter- charge style; campaign rhetoric is having an effect on the faithful voters all across America; they are turning out in droves to vote! The mania which was accompanying these battling front runners for the Democratic nomination for President of the United States hasn't flat lined; it is mania now [CLICK]. To claim that it isn't mania may be a mistake, and to claim that if these two camps were to join forces they "wouldn't have a prayer," as Rush Limbaugh [CLICK], controversial talk show radio host has done, surely doesn't ring true to what is taking place at the polls. But this isn't really mania, nobody is shouting fire, and maybe that's what's wrong, maybe this election should be manic based and fire shouted into history.

Voters are becoming increasingly aware of what we face in choices that mean something to our lives. It is a simplistic contention to say that such was the case during the 80's and 90's; as we chose leaders for many reasons, sometimes charisma, sometimes economics, but the choices we made were based on centralized issues. In the political realm of this election for President we are hearing multiple issues, these being the war in Iraq, expanding the troop base, support for the war, the economy, race, gender and character are all addressed almost daily. This is not the stuff of mania, but when people react so strongly to the leaders, as the polarity within the party indicates is taking place- the Clinton camp and the Obama camp are poles apart on issues, rather than presenting a unification of issues, they argue from difference. It is refreshing in that it isn't mania, yet at the same time, it is alarming that it isn't mania.

During the Reagan years the mania came into play in the charismatic nature of that leader, people believed in him based on his ability to persuade the American voting public. And his party, the Republican Party, call the "Grand Old Party", or G.O.P [CLICK], profited across the elected boards in the House of Representatives, the Senate and the Judiciary. The Democrats during these times of Republican leadership lost ground in those areas, until this last election, in which the Democrats regained House and Senate lead in numbers, and speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi [CLICK] has begun to try and see that numeric voting advantage turn into an issues advantage for the party that Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama are now petitioning to lead. It really isn't mania, and maybe that is what we are missing, a leader that we feel we can't make it without?

We come to the point where you ask, almost anticlimactically, "fine, fine- what is the deal if it isn't mania (!)- WHAT IS IT? Which is answerable for the first time in some time of campaign hostility, as; a congealing of issues along popular lines for the favoritism of the voters. This is not new, it is historically cliché, and yet now in this 2008 season we want to act as if though we have added something unique to the formula. It is as if though there isn't enough drama here, so we want to pretend that issues which contain no small amount of drama on their own, aren't being handled correctly by the candidates; who answer our questions with sharply pointed one liners, claiming that each other lack substance; which only proves, we the voting public aren't demanding what is needed. We need to get control of these two candidates and ask them to answer the questions calmly, without debate heat, in a sensible set of statements which are the facts; now let's make it unique- let them answer such on a single web site for each person, one for Mr. Obama, one for Mrs. Clinton, and that be the end of it facts will out. What do you think would happen if such took place? Do you think anyone would read it?

Reference Links:

1. Screaming Fire in a Theater:

http://jonathanturley.org/2007/11/21/fifth-circuit-rules-against-student-in-violent-speech-case/

2. Soccer Match Stampeding Crowds: http://www.cbc.ca/sports/story/2000/07/19/soccerstamp000719.html

3. Obama speech listeners pass out: http://www.townhall.com/columnists/AmandaCarpenter/2008/01/08/obama_fever_makes_one_fan_pass_out

4. Plagiarism charged: http://blog.washingtonpost.com/the-trail/2008/02/18/obama_shrugs_off_clinton_plagi.html

5. Mania now: http://www.blog.rockthevote.com/2008/02/young-voters-flooded-polls.html

6. Rush Limbaugh: http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/today.guest.html

7. GOP: http://www.gop.com/

8. Speaker of the House: http://www.speaker.gov/