Monday, March 17, 2008

Obama in Rolling Stone

I'm always fascinated by the cover selections for Rolling Stone. But this month's magazine is Barack Obama--no surprise there. I'm surprised that Rolling Stone is being this ballsy, selecting and siding with one candidate over the other. I know they've done this before, they did it a few years ago with John Kerry in an attempt to override Bush, and here they are doing it again with Obama.

I'm not upset about it at all. I'm glad that they're writing an article that Americans should read, about a topic that is so crucial to our nation--more crucial than Britney Spears and her many issues.

Obama is everywhere too. I posted pictures here of all the other magazine covers I found online where his face has surfaced. He's everywhere, and using the magazines like he is only draws in more to the youth he naturally attracts. Brilliant campaigning.

At the beginning of the magazine, they made a commentary that in the past, Rolling Stone has backed many democratic candidates, John Kerry, Bill Clinton, Al Gore, and Jimmy Carter. Now they are behind Obama. This is their reason for backing Obama: "Undoing the damage of the disasterous Bush years will take a leader who can unite a deeply divided nation, and politicians with gifts like Obama's are so rare that it's imperitive for each of us to do our part." Well-said. Agree?

Further on in the magazine, in the National Affairs section, an article surfaces entitled "Hillary's Last Stand" on how she self-crucified herself and is the resaon for her own downfall. After that, two articles and an interview on Obama and his promise for change follow. "A New Hope" his article is called. Hope is the dominant theme throughout the article, as it is in his campaign.

What I did not realize that the article taught me is how much grass-roots organizing that Obama does. He has a training camp, Camp Obama, where organizers meet to be trained on how they can start organizing Obama chapters in their hometowns. A waste of money? No way! Look at how well Obama has been doing in the caucuses. It's incredible. Obama does not just want votes, he wants supporters, supporters who will organize and join in the effort to change this nation into something positive.

In defense, Hillary boasts that he's all talk and no action. She is experience and will bring true change to this nation. Honestly, I don't know who to believe. A lot of people put their trust in Obama, who, in him, they sincerely do trust and believe in his promise for hope and change.

Critics say, if Hillary can't even organize and win a caucus, how can we trust her as president? Look at Obama's organizational skills with caucuses. Now that's who we want as president.

What do you think? Do you believe Obama, that he will bring change and hope to this nation? Or are you skeptical that he will?

I do believe him. I don't think he's bullshitting us, but that's my opinion. I'm more curious to see if others are following him when he promises hope and change or if we back him with this slight skepticism because it's better than any other option.

Who are you behind, Hillary or Obama? Or are you a Republican follower behind McCain?


Megan said...

Normally, I lean to the Right Republican... but something about Obama intrigues me... much more than Clinton whose nagging and cackley voice just gets annoying.

I don't particularly trust a woman in power... we typically lead with emotions and can sometimes lack focus and rationality when faced with crisis. True, this is not a characteristic of all women, and I know that; Hilary could be completely rational and level-headed during stressful times.

I'm just not so excited about McCain... what is he really planning on doing but modifying the current failures? (Besides, he looks like my grandpa... he had better FIRE his image consultant).

Hilary... she's all about government getting involved in things that government shouldn't get involved in... okay, maybe not involved in, but dominate.

But, to comment directly to your post, I think it's a bit curious that several magazines would put so much faith into endorsing one candidate over another (unless they have done Hillary features... in which case, disregard the following statements...) It's a big risk... Barack and Hillary are kind of even right now, so the magazine might risk losing the following of 50% of it's readers simply for featuring the rival candidate. It's also interesting that the magazine titled the articles the way they did. Dig deep, English Geek, and think about connotation and denotation. Think about Custer's last stand... forcing the Native Americans back to their reservations...The battle ended in demist for Custer and his army... foreshadowing?? hmm...

Alls I knows is... This country needs something huge... 'cause at this rate, we're going to hell in a handbasket. Change? A New Hope? I think so.

Jami said...

Excellent comment. I agree what you're saying about the other candidates--of women in tough situations not thinking quite rationally. In the Rolling Stone article on Hillary, I thought the author made a kind of borderline sexist comment when he mentioned something similar to what you said, just something about women not being able to handle the stress of presidency. It just made me think that, in years, we could go back and read that comment like we would read some racist comment in a newspaper in the 1960s.

McCain doesn't do much for me either. He's too conservative for me, and he does look like a grandpa. I didn't mind him in previous years, and I wouldn't mind too much if he became president (more than the other Republican candidates he beat out), but Obama, and even Hillary, and better choices than this guy.

I think it's crazy to see how many magazines have him on the cover. But like you said, this country needs change and hope, and when he advertizes that as his main slogan, we're bought in. I'm even bought in. I just hope he's not like American advertizers, selling us a message and scamming us afterwards. I don't see that in him, but my lack of trust in American promises sometimes holds strong, especially with gigantic issues like the US presidency.