Roxxxanne
 
  1  
Sun 19 Mar, 2006 10:13 am
BTW Murtha on MTP coming up...Gen Casey on now, making excuses...
0 Replies
 
sozobe
 
  1  
Sun 19 Mar, 2006 10:15 am
sozobe wrote:
Lash, I think it's one piece of the puzzle. If it charm were the only or even the main element to him, no. But if he were just intelligence and experience with no charm, also no. (cough *Kerry* cough).


Actually, I think there are two separate kinds of charm -- the charm of looking into a camera or over a crowd and connecting with the people watching you, and the charm of doing your thing in a smoke-filled room (i.e. politicians politicianing). I think Kerry had the latter, but not the former; I think Obama has both, and that both are important. (Again, as elements of the whole.)
0 Replies
 
Lash
 
  1  
Sun 19 Mar, 2006 10:17 am
snood wrote:
Lash wrote:
Makes me sad that you think charm is one of the three most important needs of a President, soz.


Oh, come on. Don't you remember all the "down-home" charm Bush was touted as having - that he'd be someone the bubbas would like to sit down with over a beer? Don't you remember how much charm Reagan was said to have - how disarming and likeable? How can you feign ignorance or suprise about the necessity of a pres candidate to be perceived as charming?

In your post, you do not address my quote. Charm is nice. One of the three, or two, main or most important needs? I say no.

But, lets don't muck up soz' thread. If you aren't satisfied, use PM.
0 Replies
 
snood
 
  1  
Sun 19 Mar, 2006 10:26 am
Lash wrote:
snood wrote:
Lash wrote:
Makes me sad that you think charm is one of the three most important needs of a President, soz.


Oh, come on. Don't you remember all the "down-home" charm Bush was touted as having - that he'd be someone the bubbas would like to sit down with over a beer? Don't you remember how much charm Reagan was said to have - how disarming and likeable? How can you feign ignorance or suprise about the necessity of a pres candidate to be perceived as charming?

In your post, you do not address my quote. Charm is nice. One of the three, or two, main or most important needs? I say no.

But, lets don't muck up soz' thread. If you aren't satisfied, use PM.


We have been talking about something Sozobe, and other posters have been addressing. I don't detect any danger of "mucking up" anything. What are you referring to?
0 Replies
 
sozobe
 
  1  
Sun 19 Mar, 2006 12:40 pm
Just saw this in today's paper, haven't read it yet:

http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2006/03/19/weekinreview/19kornblut.184.jpg

But Will They Love Him Tomorrow?

First part:

Quote:
0 Replies
 
nimh
 
  1  
Sun 19 Mar, 2006 03:17 pm
Lash wrote:
In your post, you do not address my quote. Charm is nice. One of the three, or two, main or most important needs? I say no.

Roxxxanne is right: you're arguing against something that was never said.

Charm was never mentioned as "one of the two or three most important needs of a President"; it was mentioned as one "of the main things a president needs".

And yes, whether its a good or a sad thing, in this TV era, there's no way to become, and to stay President without charm. Kind of a commonplace observation.
0 Replies
 
snood
 
  1  
Sun 19 Mar, 2006 03:53 pm
I'm still trying to figue out how Lash thought we were "mucking up Sozobe's thread".
0 Replies
 
Lash
 
  1  
Sun 19 Mar, 2006 06:46 pm
sozobe wrote:
Oh and I think two of the main things a president needs in immediate, non-advisor situations is personal charm and intelligence, and he has both of those.

Nimh, if you're going to nose in to try to prove me wrong, shouldn't you make sure I am wrong first? Is that even a part of your criteria anymore?
0 Replies
 
OCCOM BILL
 
  1  
Sun 19 Mar, 2006 06:50 pm
Rox, Sozobe answered your question immediately after you asked it, and Nimh backed it up with a graph. Murtha is the new poster boy for "let's focus on not being Bush" (whether that's accurate or not; that's the perception), which is a failed strategy. That probably doesn't sit well with you because you like the idea of impeachment and agree with Murtha's steadfast defeatism, but that's not what the public is looking for. It is simply too easy to re-ring the "Democrats don't have a plan" bell with such posturing. Notice where the Independents sit on Nimh's graph regarding impeachment; and you should see the fatal flaw in the strategy. Those are votes the Democrats need.

Snood; I pretty much agree that the Democrats need to shake things up a bit and be bold... but caution where and when to do so. ABB stances are tired and any drastic changes in foreign policy will;

a) Keep all of the talking points directed at security; where Republicans have a perceptional advantage.
b) Make it too easy to paint the Democrats as weak.

Those who find their anti-war views top priority, like Blueflame, should aggressively campaign for such... but I don't see it as a winning strategy in the short term. Regardless of how you word the "approval polls" to demonstrate American's disapproval; I think the majority still understand that we have to clean up the messes we make... whether they like it or not. Too much fervor against cleaning it up (Murtha, Pelosi etc.) caters to too small a percentage of the demographic. In 08, we won't be voting for the President of San Francisco.

Shake things up? Yeah... but not on foreign policy. A fresh young voice like Obama's could address a balanced budget amendment, campaign reform, pork barrel spending, classroom reform, maybe even address our failed drug policies... pretty much anything but foreign policy.

The last plays too much into the hands of Republicans who will continue to be perceived stronger on Defense and will have an easy time painting Democrats as weak and ABB if they try it.

I agree completely with Soz regarding Charm, also. Examine the candidates for the last 30 years and I think you'll find arguably the more charming candidate won every Presidential election. It would be foolhardy to ignore this, since only the winner's positions apply. This is probably the most attractive feature Obama brings to the table. I agree with Setanta that Giuliani may be the only man who could match him in this regard. Giuliani too, exudes confidence when he speaks. Remember his opening at the RNC? "Welcome to the capital of the world" delivered with matter-of-fact charisma. He effortlessly tweaked American and New York pride in a way a Bush or Kerry could never do. This has everything to do with winning elections.

Compare Bush and Clinton's delivery of powerful messages:

Bush at the SOTU : "Hindsight alone is not wisdom and second guessing is not a strategy...".

Clinton at the DNC: "Strength and Wisdom are not opposing values..."

Both powerful statements, but Clinton's reached out and grabbed you because of his delivery. Switch speakers of both scripts; and Clinton would still have made the more powerful impact.

This is where Obama shines as brightly as anyone.
0 Replies
 
nimh
 
  1  
Sun 19 Mar, 2006 07:04 pm
Lash wrote:
sozobe wrote:
Oh and I think two of the main things a president needs in immediate, non-advisor situations is personal charm and intelligence, and he has both of those.

Nimh, if you're going to nose in to try to prove me wrong, shouldn't you make sure I am wrong first? Is that even a part of your criteria anymore?

Do you even bother to read what you quote, Lash?

"Two of the main things" Not Equal "One of the two main things"

"Two of the main things" could be two of eighteen main things.

Hence:

Quote:
Roxxxanne is right: you're arguing against something that was never said.

Charm was never mentioned as "one of the two or three most important needs of a President"; it was mentioned as one "of the main things a president needs".

Personal charm is one of the main things a president needs; intelligence is one of the main things a president needs; together, yes, they are "two of the main things a president needs"; there could still be another fifteen main things.

All-right?

Jeez... and then to still come up with the aggro as well ... Rolling Eyes
0 Replies
 
blueflame1
 
  1  
Sun 19 Mar, 2006 07:06 pm
OCCUM, well you got me pegged. I consider Bushie a war criminal and letting a war criminal escape judgement is wrong. Most Americans believe Bushie deliberately lied us into war and say that is impeachable. Dems who are scared of the truth are complicit. I agree with Cindy Sheehan who blasted Hilary and Feinstein and other wishy washy Dems. Looking back to Iran/Contra Reagan/Bush certainly should have been impeached. But Dems like Lee Hamilton allowed them to escape. Now criminals like Negroponte, Abrams, Bolton, Cheney, Rummy, etc, rule the roost and are again caught in huge crimes. And again people like Lee Hamilton whitewash their investigations of wrongdoing. These fence sitting, living in fear Dems are America's biggest problem. Playing politics and trying to win elections at this point is a laugh considering our votes are counted by thugs who control no paper trail machines. The evidence in elections since 2000 is that our votes dont count anymore and still leading Dems sit on their hands.
0 Replies
 
nimh
 
  1  
Sun 19 Mar, 2006 07:06 pm
sozobe wrote:
Just saw this in today's paper, haven't read it yet:

http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2006/03/19/weekinreview/19kornblut.184.jpg

But Will They Love Him Tomorrow?

I loved the finishing lines of that article ... both of them. Very Happy

Quote:
"I want to thank you for all the generous advance coverage you've given me in anticipation of a successful career," Mr. Obama said. "When I actually do something, we'll let you know."

And no doubt, when that happens, the world will notice.
0 Replies
 
snood
 
  1  
Sun 19 Mar, 2006 07:07 pm
OCCOM BILL wrote:
Rox, Sozobe answered your question immediately after you asked it, and Nimh backed it up with a graph. Murtha is the new poster boy for "let's focus on not being Bush" (whether that's accurate or not; that's the perception), which is a failed strategy. That probably doesn't sit well with you because you like the idea of impeachment and agree with Murtha's steadfast defeatism, but that's not what the public is looking for. It is simply too easy to re-ring the "Democrats don't have a plan" bell with such posturing. Notice where the Independents sit on Nimh's graph regarding impeachment; and you should see the fatal flaw in the strategy. Those are votes the Democrats need.

Snood; I pretty much agree that the Democrats need to shake things up a bit and be bold... but caution where and when to do so. ABB stances are tired and any drastic changes in foreign policy will;

a) Keep all of the talking points directed at security; where Republicans have a perceptional advantage.
b) Make it too easy to paint the Democrats as weak.

Those who find their anti-war views top priority, like Blueflame, should aggressively campaign for such... but I don't see it as a winning strategy in the short term. Regardless of how you word the "approval polls" to demonstrate American's disapproval; I think the majority still understand that we have to clean up the messes we make... whether they like it or not. Too much fervor against cleaning it up (Murtha, Pelosi etc.) caters to too small a percentage of the demographic. In 08, we won't be voting for the President of San Francisco.

Shake things up? Yeah... but not on foreign policy. A fresh young voice like Obama's could address a balanced budget amendment, campaign reform, pork barrel spending, classroom reform, maybe even address our failed drug policies... pretty much anything but foreign policy.

The last plays too much into the hands of Republicans who will continue to be perceived stronger on Defense and will have an easy time painting Democrats as weak and ABB if they try it.

I agree completely with Soz regarding Charm, also. Examine the candidates for the last 30 years and I think you'll find arguably the more charming candidate won every Presidential election. It would be foolhardy to ignore this, since only the winner's positions apply. This is probably the most attractive feature Obama brings to the table. I agree with Setanta that Giuliani may be the only man who could match him in this regard. Giuliani too, exudes confidence when he speaks. Remember his opening at the RNC? "Welcome to the capital of the world" delivered with matter-of-fact charisma. He effortlessly tweaked American and New York pride in a way a Bush or Kerry could never do. This has everything to do with winning elections.

Compare Bush and Clinton's delivery of powerful messages:

Bush at the SOTU : "Hindsight alone is not wisdom and second guessing is not a strategy...".

Clinton at the DNC: "Strength and Wisdom are not opposing values..."

Both powerful statements, but Clinton's reached out and grabbed you because of his delivery. Switch speakers of both scripts; and Clinton would still have made the more powerful impact.

This is where Obama shines as brightly as anyone.



I can't help but be a little repulsed, even though I understand the utility of it, by the need to deny one's own principles in the quest to win the White House or any American elective office. Inother words, I understand and agree that it will be necessary to limit the 'tree-shaking' to domestic policy, but part of me wonders how much of the true man remains after he undergoes the moral castration necessary to be elected. It seems we try to factor out humanity in our search for some perfect inoffensively commercial cipher - that's politics.

I resist your characterization of our remaining in Iraq as a necessary "cleaning up". I can easily envision the chaos being as lively in two years as in two months. Opinions vary about the true impetus for the original invasion, and for the inpetus to stay. An argument can be made that Bush "stays the course" because he doesn't know what else to do, just as he went to war because of an idea deficit (but that part's neither here nor there, I guess).

Giuliani is weak as a contender simply because the GOP isn't going to have any pro-choice candidate. Deny it if you will, but it is their unspoken litmus test. Leave alone that he supports the legal unions of Gays.
0 Replies
 
nimh
 
  1  
Sun 19 Mar, 2006 07:09 pm
blueflame1 wrote:
Most Americans believe Bushie deliberately lied us into war

Yes, true... "misled", anyway...

blueflame1 wrote:
and say that is impeachable.

Question That, I have not seen.
0 Replies
 
Lash
 
  1  
Sun 19 Mar, 2006 07:31 pm
"Two of the main things" Not Equal "One of the two main things"

This is the craziest thing ever written. I can't fathom why you thought it was so important to make such a non-distinction.

Jesus!
0 Replies
 
nimh
 
  1  
Sun 19 Mar, 2006 07:40 pm
OCCOM BILL wrote:
That probably doesn't sit well with you because you like the idea of impeachment and agree with Murtha's steadfast defeatism, but that's not what the public is looking for. It is simply too easy to re-ring the "Democrats don't have a plan" bell with such posturing. Notice where the Independents sit on Nimh's graph regarding impeachment; and you should see the fatal flaw in the strategy. Those are votes the Democrats need.

Hmm, yes but you are conflating two things here: the case for impeachment and the case for an anti-(Iraq) war platform.

Impeachment is obviously a loser of a proposition (and not just in terms of public opinion either, but thats what I'm talking about now).

But the "steadfast defeatism", as you call it, is another issue.

The line you were proposing earlier; basically, "steering the course", sticking the Iraq war out (and thus, unavoidably, making the case that doing so will yield a stable and/or democratic enough state), and basically deflecting questions about it with a "leaving it to the generals, they know best what to do" line; all of that is, at this moment of time, far from in tune with public opinion.

To get a better impression of where public opinion stands right now on these issues, this is an overview of recent opinion poll results on Iraq questions that I was compiling this morning.

Specifically, I'll point out the polls on two questions not included in that overview:

Quote:
Regardless of how you word the "approval polls" to demonstrate American's disapproval; I think the majority still understand that we have to clean up the messes we make... whether they like it or not. Too much fervor against cleaning it up (Murtha, Pelosi etc.) caters to too small a percentage of the demographic. In 08, we won't be voting for the President of San Francisco.

On this count, this poll seems most relevant for this discussion: which position is more of an advantage or liability to win mainstream voters over?

NBC News/Wall Street Journal Poll. March 10-13, 2006

"I'm going to read you several characteristics of a possible candidate for Congress. For each one I mention, please tell me whether you would be more likely or less likely to vote for a candidate for Congress with that characteristic, or whether it would make no difference in your vote either way. A candidate who [see below]."

"Favors withdrawing all American troops from Iraq in the next twelve months"


50% More Likely
35% Less Likely
12% No Difference
3% Unsure

"Favors staying in Iraq as long as is necessary to create a stable Iraqi democracy"

39% More Likely
43% Less Likely
14% No Difference
4% Unsure

Other polls show that whereas an immediate withdrawal is rejected by a great majority, there is an equally overwhelming majority for reducing troops - and although one needs to browse back to results from January on the Polling Report Iraq pages to find data, the opinion is pretty much split down the middle when the choice is between "keeping military troops in Iraq until the situation has stabilized" vs "bringing the troops home as soon as possible", or between "setting a timetable for removing troops from Iraq and remove them regardless of whether the U.S. goals are achieved by that time" and "staying until the U.S. achieves its goals there".

Half/half, opinion is on those choices now - and this is 2006, not 2008... if anything, if the US is still in Iraq by then, the "withdraw" agenda will have an even greater echo.

OCCOM BILL wrote:
The last plays too much into the hands of Republicans who will continue to be perceived stronger on Defense

Surprisingly, the ground has shifted far on even that, at least where capability is specifically assessed on Iraq. Eg:

NBC News/Wall Street Journal Poll. March 10-13, 2006

"When it comes to dealing with Iraq, which party do you think would do a better job: the Democratic Party, the Republican Party, or both about the same? If you think that neither would do a good job, please just say so."

27% Democratic Party
30% Republican Party
21% About the Same
16% Neither
6% Unsure

CNN/USA Today/Gallup Poll. March 10-12, 2006.

"Do you think the Republicans in Congress or the Democrats in Congress would do a better job of dealing with each of the following issues and problems? How about the situation in Iraq?"

40% Republicans
48% Democrats
6% No Difference (vol.)
6% Unsure

CBS News Poll. March 9-12, 2006

"Regardless of how you usually vote, do you think the Republican Party or the Democratic Party is more likely to make the right decisions about the war in Iraq?"

35% Republican Party
41% Democratic Party
2% Both (vol.)
8% Neither (vol.)
14% Unsure

ABC News/Washington Post Poll. March 2-5, 2006

"Which political party, the Democrats or the Republicans, do you trust to do a better job handling the situation in Iraq?"

42% Democrats
42% Republicans
2% Both (vol.)
11% Neither (vol.)
2% Unsure
0 Replies
 
nimh
 
  1  
Sun 19 Mar, 2006 07:43 pm
Lash wrote:
"Two of the main things" Not Equal "One of the two main things"

This is the craziest thing ever written. I can't fathom why you thought it was so important to make such a non-distinction.

Ehm.. I made the distinction because your entire conversation on this point was about how weird it was to identify charm as one of the two or three most important things .

But nobody said it was one of the two or three most important things.

So you've kinda just been out going on a limb.

All anyone said was that charm and intelligence were two of the (six? ten? fifteen?) main things for a President to have.

Who could argue with that? <shrugs>
0 Replies
 
blueflame1
 
  1  
Sun 19 Mar, 2006 07:43 pm
nimh, well here's some info on that. "Poll: Americans Favor Bush's Impeachment If He Lied about Iraq" http://www.afterdowningstreet.org/?q=node/3528 And here's something on the wiretapping. Very interesting. http://www.democrats.com/bush-impeachment-poll-2
0 Replies
 
Lash
 
  1  
Sun 19 Mar, 2006 07:57 pm
sozobe wrote:
Oh and I think two of the main things a president needs in immediate, non-advisor situations is personal charm and intelligence, and he has both of those.


Relax that sphincter, nimh!!!

If personal charm and intelligence are the two main things, the charm is one of the two main things.

No matter how you try to twist it.
0 Replies
 
cyphercat
 
  1  
Sun 19 Mar, 2006 08:04 pm
From the article that Soz linked to on the previous page:
New York Times wrote:
"The ones who have been successful were very focused in understanding where they wanted to go, and had a good strategy to get there," Professor West said. "You can't wait too long because golden boys only last so long and then they start to tarnish. And then they just become one of the pack, and there's nothing special about them."


That's why I hope he runs in 08, despite the experience thing. I don't think he'd be smart to trade the excitement surrounding him now for the perception of being more experienced later. I'll join your grassroots campaign, Soz... Very Happy
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

So....Will Biden Be VP? - Question by blueveinedthrobber
My view on Obama - Discussion by McGentrix
Obama/ Love Him or Hate Him, We've Got Him - Discussion by Phoenix32890
Obama fumbles at Faith Forum - Discussion by slkshock7
Expert: Obama is not the antichrist - Discussion by joefromchicago
Obama's State of the Union - Discussion by maxdancona
Obama 2012? - Discussion by snood
 
  1. Forums
  2. » Obama '08?
  3. » Page 17
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.47 seconds on 12/25/2024 at 11:25:00