Mr. Athens? Commander Sparta?

Last night I watched Zack Snyder's 2007 film version of Frank Miller's graphic novel, 300; an account of Sparta's King Leonidas and his brothers-in-arms defense of Sparta from Persia, led by Xerxes. (Persia, led by King Xerxes, attacked Greece, which was made up numerous city-states, and King Leonidas and his personal bodygaurds of 300 men and others held them off at a narrow pass called Thermopylae in 480 BC for two days before being slaughtered to the man.)

What struck me was the sense of militarism and the unabashed Greco flag waving and the rhetoric of "free men" and "freedom." It was a highly testosterone affair with slightly racial overtones.

For instance, ancient Persia, is the forerunner of moden day Iran (that's a problem right there). According to Wikipedia, Iran is a "cognate of the of Aryans, and means land of the Aryans." Now, Aryans have been mostly seen as "white people," aka "caucasians," but in the film Xerxes, the king of the Persian empire was "black," meaning he had bronze skin coloration. Put less graciously, the dude looked like a bona fide nigga with a serious bling-bling problem.

Now, I understand that this was a film based on a graphic novel, which means historical inaccuracy was a foregone conclusion. But one would think that the filmmaker would try to at least get the demographic right. Most, if not all of the Persians, looked to be "people of color."
Not only was Xerxes "black" but also a less than flaming faggot while Leonidas, was the epitome of Spartan masculinity. In the film, Leonidas disparaged his fellow Greeks in Athens as being merely "philosophers" and "boy lovers" to an emissary of Persia.

As a matter of act, when Leonidas wife puts in her two cents , the Persian emissary questions how is it that a Spartan woman can partakes in men-talk (affairs of the state)?

She replies that's due to the fact that Spartan women give birth to "real men." (Latter in the film she ably dispatches a Spartan politician who had abused and betrayed before the council of men.)

Where is this going? Well, read the last lines of John McCain's speech:

I’m going to fight for my cause every day as your President. I’m going to fight to make sure every American has every reason to thank God, as I thank Him: that I’m an American, a proud citizen of the greatest country on earth, and with hard work, strong faith and a little courage, great things are always within our reach. Fight with me. Fight with me. Fight for what’s right for our country. Fight for the ideals and character of a free people. Fight for our children’s future. Fight for justice and opportunity for all. Stand up to defend our country from its enemies. Stand up for each other; for beautiful, blessed, bountiful America. Stand up, stand up, stand up and fight. Nothing is inevitable here. We’re Americans, and we never give up. We never quit. We never hide from history. We make history.

Stating the obvious, McCain, as a former military man, is emblematic of the Spartan warrior ethos. Hence his stake in supporting the surge and using his past expericence as military man to become the commander in chief. McCain is known to be a hot head, which means to some degree he is a man of passion, however erratic.

Mr. Cool, Obama, is a lawyer, and constitutional one, embodies the Athenian ethos: deliberative, reasonable, and contemplative. One example of this is his response to aquestion at Rick Warren's Saddleback Church.

When asked about when does life begin, Obama replied "...That's above my pay grade." Cool. Rationale.

As as matter of fact, Washinton Post columnist Richard Cohen wonders if Obama is "Too Cool to Fight?:

Stephanopoulos vainly tried for some genuine reaction [from Obama]. In choosing Palin, did John McCain get someone who met the minimum test of being "capable of being president"? Everyone in America knows the answer to that. They know McCain picked someone so unqualified she has been hiding from the media because a question to her is like kryptonite to what's-his-name. But did Obama say anything like that? Here are his exact words: "Well, you know, I'll let you ask John McCain when he's on ABC." Boy, Palin will never get over that.

This has generally been Obama's response: calm, cool, and collected. However, it is that very sort of lack of obvious passion when not giving a speech that makes some people believe if he won't do battle in the campaign, how will he do battle if the wins the White House? This is the general view of most voters who watched as John Kerry allowed his record to be torn to shreds.

As Cohen notes:

What Obama does not understand is that he is being Swift-boated. The term does not apply to a mere smear. It is bolder, more outrageous than that. It means going straight at your opponent's strength and maligning it. This is what was done in 2004 to John Kerry, who had commanded a Swift boat in Vietnam. Kerry had won three Purple Hearts, a Silver Star and a Bronze Star and emerged from the war a certified hero. It was that record that his opponents attacked, a tactic Kerry thought so ludicrous that he at first ignored it. The record shows that he lost the election.

As is stands now, the "maverick" label appeals to people who want a leader(s) to fight and buck the system. Or, the McCain/Palin ticket is now appealing to base conservatives who believe they now have a ticket worth believing in.

Perhaps, we should keep the faith that Team Obama knows the real deal; he's sticking to his game plan and organizing in key electoral states. Perhaps this is the "new kind of politics" that Obama is talking about: a kind of bloodless politics that is more cerebal than visceral.

Perhaps. But people want a "leader," a man or woman who will plant the standard of their hopes, dreams and principles in the earth and say: "This is what I stand for, and this is what I will die for."

Politics doesn't have to be bloody, but is should have some passion.