Talk:Public image of Barack Obama

Removed off topic text

The text below has nothing to do with the public image of Obama; rather is a comment on US society in general and the effects of slavery, so I have removed it. I have moved the references to the external sources section and to the next paragraph of the text where they fit better.

In January 2007, The End of Blackness author Debra Dickerson warned against drawing favorable cultural implications from Obama's political rise: "Lumping us all together," Dickerson wrote in Salon, "erases the significance of slavery and continuing racism while giving the appearance of progress."

Here is thediff 209.44.123.1 (talk) 19:28, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Deleting the lede and misrepresenting poll

While Boromir123 made the changes, Jerzeykydd is once again deleting consensus material and re-adding a poll that is being misrepresented. The lede is supposed to be a short summary of the article, which it is. The poll, Boromir123 inserted incorrect numbers, stating "Polling has shown that only 6% of Israeli citizens approve of Obama's policies" --even though the politico link states that "Just 9% of Israelis, according to the poll, says he's "pro-Israel," to the 48% who said he's pro-Palestinian and 30% who called him neutral" -- saying nothing of "approval" or disapproval. Also, the politico link makes a caveat of "the survey from the conservative JPost interviewed only Israeli Jews; a more positive figure last week from the liberal Haaretz...". So please stop changing the lede and re-inserting the incorrect polling section. DD2K (talk) 00:43, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Consensus can change. --William S. Saturn (talk) 00:44, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Where in the article does it specifically say and cite that his savvy, charisma, conservative support, etc. were the main reasons of his election victory. I can argue that he won the election because of the Bush Referendum.--Jerzeykydd (talk) 00:57, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Excuse me, but did you even read the article, or the many other Obama articles, before making these changes or asking that question? You should start here --> Temperament - Political Savvy - Conservative support. DD2K (talk) 01:12, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

citation request.

Someone removed my citation request in the article header. I placed it there because the header states that "He was the first candidate for US President to have a biracial and international background." This seems incorrect, if you see here any thoughts? I'm disputing the "international background" verbage, not the "Biracial" part, unless you consider Cynthia Mckinney's simultaneous green party candidacy contrary to the first part of the sentence.Efcmagnew (talk) 19:47, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

I would say the part about being "the first candidate for US President to have a[n]... international background" is incorrect. Especially considering that most of the candidates during the first half a century America existed had international backgrounds. Although I do think, and believe the sources indicate this, Obama is the first candidate who got elected with a Pacific international background. Dave Dial (talk) 20:48, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

if no one objects, I would like to change it to say "the first US president to have both a biracial and international background" though I'm not sure that's true, either. according to the primary definition of race, a person with eastern and western european heritage could be considered biracial. In any case, referring to him as a "US president" instead of a candidate prevents giving WP:undue to republican and democrat candidates over third parties. Thank you for your input, Efcmagnew (talk) 21:02, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Proposed change to Race and Culture section

Did this section just rub any of you other people the wrong way?

In a March 2007 op-ed, African-American film critic David Ehrenstein of the L.A. Times said that Obama was an early popular contender for the presidency not because of his political record, but because whites viewed him as a kind of "comic-book superhero", a benign magical Negro who would selflessly solve white people's problems.

I would like to begin by saying that IMO I think the author of this article is a racist(he's black in case you couldn't tell by his name), and that I feel this shouldn't be included if not for the Magical negro image making its way into pop culture(see Barack the magic negro). I would also like to note the article referenced doesn't even say anything about him "selflessly solving white people's problem" and that that was gratuitously added by whoever put this info into the article. With that being said I would like to propose a change(which should be noncontroversial but I'm going to Talk to discuss it anyways) to this:

In a March 2007 op-ed, African-American film critic David Ehrenstein of the L.A. Times said that Obama was an early popular contender for the presidency not because of his political record, but because whites viewed him as a kind of "comic-book superhero", the magical negro archetype of a black man coming to the aide of non-blacks with almost mystical qualities.

The use of OpEd's as sources

The following section was removed for being based off an opinion editorial, the only type of article which covers aspects of people's public image. If you want I can go through the article and point out all the OpEd's(which I'm sure are numerous), but before I go through the trouble, does anybody else think that is a ridiculous reason for removing this and that the real reason behind its removal is pure POV:?
Still others have criticized Obama for not exhibiting enough empathy. Wall Street Journal contributor Peggy Noonan interprets his lack of an emotional response to be indicative of a detachment from the feelings of the American people and predicts his typical "No Drama Obama" approach to the gulf stream oil spill to have the same effects on him as hurricane Katrina had on Bush.

Note: Barack Obama is frequently criticized for his overly cool demeanor and perceived detachment, he was criticized for his late response to the fort hood shooting and for the BP oil spill, so this article is in no way a unique piece, and the lack of inclusion of this viewpoint is clearly POV.

-References-

Really, nobody cares; adding this shit here is about as ludicrous as a Michael Moore-penned column in the Village Voice being used in a Bush article. If all you wish to do is rattle off a laundry list of partisan criticisms, then head on over to blogspot.com and pour your heart out. It has no encyclopedic value. Tarc (talk) 02:10, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Michael Moore isn't a well respected journalist like Peggy Noonan and the Village Voice(which I've never heard of) probably isn't a quarter as reliable as the Wall Street Journal. Your shallow attempts to discredit legitimate criticism of Barack Obama by calling it "a laundry list of partisan criticism"(despite the fact that he has been criticized on the left for this too) is completely unnecessary for this article. If you don't have a real argument and only wish to insult those who you disagree with instead of discussing things then I'm reverting your edits. Come back if you have a real issue with this being included. Ink Falls 02:20, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Yawn. Wikipedia:RS#Statements of opinion is thataway. Tarc (talk) 02:59, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

So what your saying is, if I find a bunch of people who all think that his "No Drama Obama" image is showing a disconnect between him and the American people, then I can write "The president is sometimes viewed as disconnected with the emotions of the American people"? Which would be an accurate assessment of how he is perceived by many. Ink Falls 03:13, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Given your current track record of source-misusing and penchant for partisan hatchet jobs, probably not. Tarc (talk) 14:04, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

I have to agree with Tarc here. The only possible way to frame it would be along the lines of "some political opponents say..." Once you get to that point, it becomes clear that it is not the public image we are talking about, but rather the image as seen by political opponents. For the record, Peggy Noonan's opinion piece was seen as an "outlier" that wasn't really a fair reflection on reality. You'd be hard-pressed to find similar commentary from any neutral sources. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:24, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

What you fail to realize is that many people criticize Obama for his perceived calmness. You want a fair source, I attended a lecture by David Brooks, a big fan of Obama, who outright stated that Obama doesn't connect with the American people emotionally, and I have viewed both Jon Stewart and some other liberal guy criticize Obama for as they put it "The one time you should get angry and upset is this time! With this BP oil spill, but your not!". So in my personal experience Barack Obama is generally perceived to be too calm, and Peggy Noonan didn't just write "I feel this way" but she wrote "The American people are complaining that he's too calm" thus it could easily be worded in his "No drama Obama" image section that he is perceived as being too detached. As for tarq's pathetic attempt to discredit those who disagree with him, that's really sad. Ink Falls 17:21, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

David Brooks is a conservative pundit, just like Peggy Noonan. Jon Stewart criticizes everybody because he is paid to do so. And Peggy Noonan does not speak for "The American people" - she speaks for herself. The opinions of two conservative pundits and a comedian are not representative of the nation as a whole. -- Scjessey (talk) 17:47, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

David Brooks may be a conservative, but he is a huge fan of Barack Obama. See "Usually when I talk to senators, while they may know a policy area better than me, they generally don’t know political philosophy better than me. I got the sense he knew both better than me. [...] I remember distinctly an image of--we were sitting on his couches, and I was looking at his pant leg and his perfectly creased pant, and I’m thinking, a) he’s going to be president and b) he’ll be a very good president.”. The man fawns over Barack Obama calling him an "island" and comments on his godlike serenity drawing from his excellent self confidence which fans adore and enemies fear, and puts him in the category of FDR and Ronald Regan. If he's not a neutral(or even pro-Obama) enough source, then nobody is. Besides you are assuming that the journalist who call him "No Drama Obama" are speakers of the American people more so then these other people, do you have any proof that they are more so speakers for the American people? Ink Falls 18:49, 8 June 2010 (UTC)