True confessions of an Obamaniac

At a recent journalism job interview, I was asked to survey the field of 2008 presidential candidates. Who did I like, and why?

I started to rattle off a list of positions that had caught my eye — positions on electoral ethics, health care, poverty, gay rights and other issues. Then I caught myself. "Who am I kidding?" I finally confessed. "Right now, I support Barack Obama, and for entirely irrational reasons."

This certainly didn't win me any points. Instead, it elicited some nervous, somewhat disapproving laughter, as they waited for me to redact the comment. But, I had told the truth.

I found myself saying that Obama is capable of restoring some sense of dignity to the office of President of the United States. I said I liked the energy behind his campaign. I said that he excited me, that I admired him as a person and the values he represented.

And I was soon disgusted to realize that my words of support for Obama were very close to those levied in the 2000 election in favor of — heaven help me — George W. Bush. In 2000, Bush supporters said he was the antithesis of the outgoing president. He was a mite inexperienced, sure, but that was spun favorably as an "outside the Beltway" approach. There was much hype about Bush, about how he was going to bring the ruthless efficiency of a Harvard MBA-holder to the office that had been desecrated with moral, political and administrative laxity. About how he was one of the people (with has a Texas accent, no less!). About how he was the type of person with whom voters wanted to share a beer and maybe even an inside joke.

When pressed for reasons why they supported Bush, citizens who attended Bush's campaign rallies in 2000 and were interviewed for the documentary "Journeys with George" said, over and over again, that they "just liked" him. That year Ralph Nader '55 told voters not to cast their ballot for the lesser of two evils; but only in (some) Gore supporters' eyes was their candidate an "evil." To Bush supporters, their candidate was a breath of fresh air, a godsend. He was all the things that Obama is to many disgusted, yet hopeful, voters — voters like me, today.

And look how well that turned out.

Because there was so much vacuous, issue-lacking hype about Bush, critics, myself included, chiefly attacked him for being stupid, inarticulate and thickheaded. Those were the only words that could be used, after all, to hack through the hype: trivial, issue-less rebuttals for trivial, issue-less claims. Today it infuriates me when people call Bush "stupid" or mock him for his malapropisms. This is not because I think Bush has gotten any smarter or more articulate. These actions bother me because they excuse, trivialize and detract attention from his crimes against humanity.

I remember, in 2000, looking down upon those thoughtless supporters of Bush who hoisted him into power for what appeared to be purely irrational, intangible reasons, and I remember laughing at them. I remember thinking how dangerous it was to elect someone with your gut.

Here I am, seven years later, a soon-to-be graduate of the number-one university in the United States, unless, of course, I absentmindedly totter out FitzRandolph Gate tomorrow, an informed citizen who reads enough news and knows enough policy to ably make rational political choices, and I'm guilty of the very same sin I scoffed at. For some reason this time around I have found those very same silly, ridiculous, meaningless motives perfectly reasonable bases for supporting a candidate.

And I'm not the only one. When a few reports surfaced last week that Obama had invested in companies backed by his top donors, giving the impression of a conflict of interest, many major news outlets gave it extremely short shrift, if any shrift at all. The story itself — somewhat comparable to accusations made about Bill Frist's blind trust, a story that stuck around for months — died in about two days.

While I have no reason to believe Obama committed any wrongdoing, I am still distressed by the dangerous investigative neglect my colleagues in the media seem to be lavishing on this new political golden boy, however inspiring and wonderful he might be. My recent job interviewers may have looked down on me for confessing to my irrational, pro-Obama bias when I claim to be a rational, objective journalist. But I suspect they — if they're reading any of the same publications that I do, anyway — might be affected by the same foolish affliction. And the first step to recovery is admitting you have a problem. Catherine Rampell is an anthropology major from Palm Beach, Fla. She can be reached at crampell@princeton.edu.