I've never been excited about a candidate before; I've always been interested in political ideas but never in politics-as-practiced.  I'm genuinely excited about Senator Obama and his presidential campaign, though, and I'm obviously not the only one.

At the height of that excitement, after a string of victories, a backlash has popped up.  CNN ran a story this weekend about "Obama Mania," quoting columnists who called it "creepy" and "cult-like," and asking whether this is all too much.  Really?  Have we gone so far down the cynical, deconstructionist, postmodern hole that we can't be simply, genuinely excited?

Like most public figures, I'm sure Senator Obama has some obsessive fans (probably more than most, in fact).  But that's not what CNN's story was about.  It was about long lines, filling arenas, cheering loudly, and being, well, excited.  I remember in most years reading columnists decrying political apathy and negative campaigns; and now we have political excitement and a positive campaign (positive in the deep sense - a coherent, optimistic, forward-looking vision - rather than simply "not negative").  Can we not be simply, genuinely excited?

Dahlia Lithwick does an excellent job cynically deconstructing the cynical deconstructionists - http://www.slate.com/id/2184536/ - but I wonder if we can develop a post-postmodern response.  Senator Clinton's joined in the cynical chorus, albeit with more political savvy (attempting to characterize Senator Obama as all excitement and no substance), so I gather we'll get to see whether Senator Obama is up to the task.

There are a number of reasons why I believe Senator Obama has a solid integral intuition, as I've detailed.  There are also a number of times that I've been disappointed, and today brings one of them.

Senator Clinton is contending that some of the Obama campaign's mailings regarding NAFTA are false; the Obama campaign is defending them as fair.  I'm not all that interested in that controversy (see here if you are: http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/obama_mailings_false.html); I'm disappointed in the treatment of the subject itself.

The mailing faults Senator Clinton for alleging supporting NAFTA, and in stark terms - of the how-dare-anyone-support-such-a-thing variety.  In other places, I've heard Senator Obama discuss free trade as something we need to do carefully, with assurances of fair trade and fair labor standards.  That's a nuanced approach to a difficult issue, one that takes into account the emerging global economy and at least recognizes the values involved and the necessity for a principled - even implicitly developmental - approach (i.e., free market forces alone won't ensure that worldcentric values will be practiced, and we thus run the danger of undermining our labor force, which works in a system built on more-costly worldcentric values, and undermining our values).  And one can certainly conclude that, in this context, NAFTA isn't an ideal example of a free trade agreement.

The Obama campaign's mailing captures none of that nuance, though, and instead casts NAFTA as harmful, period (and Senator Clinton as wrong for supporting it, whether true or not).  This is part of the picture, of course, but without any of the nuance that would bring it close to a whole picture.  Perhaps this is just Senator Obama tacking left and catering to labor to secure the nomination; but dammit, catering to the partial truths of particular groups is what I want less of, not more.