As I mentioned in an earlier post, I was following my Sunday tradition of watching the chattering class on the MSM political shows and arguing vehemently with my mother today. What made today interesting was my mother and wife discussing Obama's personality.

Listening to my mother tell my wife what Obama seemed like to her was fascinating. It was almost as if she were describing the ideal boyfriend. He was tough, but not the sort who gets angry. He was strong. He had charisma. There was something likable about him.*

It was interesting mainly because I have read so many descriptions of Obama by those who support him. After reading about a dozen, I think any reader will be quite puzzled. It sounds as if the writers are describing different people. Obama is tough, Obama is gentle. Obama is angry, Obama is meek, Obama is this, Obama is that. Take any description and someone has attributed it to Obama.

Nor does it get any more clear when it comes to policy. He supports the Palestinians, he supports the Israelis, he will withdraw from Iraq despite al Qaida, he would fight al Qaida in Iraq, he wants free trade, he wants fair trade, he wants protectionism, he opposes NAFTA, unless you are Canadian,  he wants racial healing, he wants reparations, he wants everything anyone could ask, and he opposes all of it too.

It appears there are a lot of Obamas. One for each supporter.

Of course, I am not saying anything new here. Best of the Web** wrote on the same topic. (Admittedly a month after I did.) It appears that Obama, by running a content free campaign, has become something of a rorschach test, appearing to be whatever an individual supporter wants him to be.

Which would be bad enough if he were just a simple con man, or a gold digger. But this man is running for president, and has almost made it through the nomination process.

Do we really want to elect someone whose entire campaign is based on never being tied down so that he can appear to be all things ot all people? Am I the only one frightened at that thought?

---------------------------------------

* If my wife reads this, I will confess that I am merging comments from two or three conversations here, but all of them are still accurate representations of what was said at one time or another.

** I would provide a link to the article itself, but they messed up their archives so badly I can no longer find old articles.

----------------------------------------

APPENDIX

Since I have written so much on Obama already, rather than repeat myself to keep the important points near the front page, I will now provide a link to all my Obama related articles. There are a lot of articles, but, then again, he has been in the news regularly and I write a lot, so it quite understandable:

And He Stands For?
Forget Hope, Try Realism
The Candidate as Inkblot
The Obama Hangover
Obama Begins to Collapse
One More Obama Update
Are the Democrats Worried About Obama?
Why McCain Will Win
In the Hands of the Superdelegates
Negative Campaigning
Infanticide
How to Lose the Independents
Why the Superdelegates Don't Care
Why Rezko Matters
Meaningless Polls
Defending Geraldine
A Brief Follow-Up
Obama Update
Cult?
Changing Predictions
So, What is Change?
I am Skeptical
Penitence or Betrayal?
Sycophantic Media and Lost elections
Changing Predictions One More
Charisma Gap
To Be Fair
Cover for the Superdelegates
More on Obama's Woes
Not Just Another Politician
Last One For Now
Can I Hate America Now?
And Now the Explanation
The Lessons of the Obama Candidacy
One More Comment on "The Speech"
Confusion Over Obama
One Surprising Thing About Obama
Changing Fortunes
Clinton Flashback?
Richardson in 2012?
Amazing
The Problem With Urban Politicians
Still More Double Standards
Best of the Web Imitates Me
One Thought
Friends and Family
I Almost Feel Sorry For Them
Mainstreaming Hate
Damage Control
Doing No Favors

By the way, if you read nothing else, please read "So, What is Change?" as it is an analysis of Obama's campaign materials, the man in his own words. It is probably the most accurate picture of the man I can find. You may also want to read my earliest essay "The Candidate as Inkblot" as it is still my best, most concise description of my problems with the man and his campaign.

I also realize I am taking a big risk here. By putting links to even my oldest articles, I create the possibility that someone will find contradictions between what I once said and what I am saying now. On the other hand, I feel confident that, should anything have changed, there is a reason. (And at least I am not worried someone will find me saying "G-d Damn America!" in an old article, or accusing the government of creating AIDS. I am pretty sure, even "cherry picked comments" from this blog will not make me sound like an anti-American loon.)

UPDATED 03/30/2008

As some have objected to my description of Obama's followers as a cult, I have here a link from a  liberal saying the same thing. The Best of the Web also wrote about this, more than once. However, as they messed up their archiving quite badly, I can only cite this older article (from which my other link comes).

In a recent conversation with my mother (an ever more ardent Obamaniac) she argued "there is more to making a decision than what someone says", and she may have a point. There is more than policy and position statements in politics, we obviously have to consider character (though the left told us it didn't matter during the Clinton era), and people will always be somewhat influenced by other factors such as personality, looks, and so on.

What bothers me is that so many people are supporting Obama SOLELY on those other factors. They know Obama is left of center, and maybe that he "opposes the war", and that is it. They are voting on a persona, and nothing more.

And when we consider that the persona on which they are basing their decision is likely one they have projected onto Obama's blank slate, it gets even more frightening.

Basically, we are left with a large number of liberals voting for themselves.

UPDATED 03/30/2008

I just noticed something interesting in the TPM Cafe article that I somehow failed to notice when reading it before. It is not attributed, so I don't know the source, but there is this quote:

The Obama campaign's instruction to their volunteers to steer clear of policy questions.

This reinforces my belief that avoiding any fixed policy is a conscious strategy on the part of Obama. He knows he cannot continue to be a mirror if he makes any concrete statements. Thus, he tells his supporters to avoid making nay policy statements, so that he can continue to be all things to all people.

Note (03/30/2008): As I have had link problems already today (see my essay "Yawn"), I am concerned that the list above may contain some bad links. I will try to test them all by hand, but I am concerned I may still miss one. So, if anyone finds a link that does not point to the correct article, please leave a note in the comments.

Note(03/31/2008): I apologize to any reader who suffered through this article in its original form. This article and one other were written while my wife and mother were out shopping and I was watching my son. I write a lot of articles while taking care of him, but today he was demanding a lot more attention, and it shows in my writing. They are fixed now, but there were at least a dozen typos in this essay that made it past my (admittedly somewhat lax) proofreading. I think I caught most of them, but I am going back to give it a second look after this note is finished. In the future, I will be much more careful if I write anything while distracted.