Obama '08?

It is rather difficult to call Bush arrogant when he seemed to spend most of his time trying to be a frat boy and a simple Texan....

Obama is plenty book smart, but his instincts and his people skills seem to be bad, which is a serious problem in american politics..For one thing who the hell ever comes forwards to tell the American people that they know Obama intimately and that he is a hell of a guy? Obama is almost like Draper on Mad Men in that he has no people and no one knows who he is. I know one preacher who thought Obama was his friend and who said nice things about Obama, but he learned the truth a few years back....

And three years in we are still trying to figure out what Obama believes in, we are so unsure that after he acts for three years like he does not care much about the dismal American jobs situation he can come out now at this late date with a flimsy plan and a claim that he does care and there are scores of people who believe that he does care, who buy his PR department's press releases claiming that he is the only one in Washington who does care. Only a guy we dont know can get away with this shapeshifting we see Obama trying to pull off this week.

True, but it's always necessary for balance. You may not call it arrogance, but I do!

Why is that "funny?"

My asserting that Obana is arrogant has no bearing whatsoever on whether or not conservatives were bothered by what you perceive to be arrogance on Bush's part.

Perhaps it was this perception of arrogance that cost him support among Independents in the last years of his Administration, but it's really immaterial.

Obama's arrogance is not perceived by the great majority of liberals as either
arrogance or unwarranted. They like when he gets tough with his opponents.

Most Democrats watching the Obama/GOP candidate debates are going to be strongly inclined to perceive him as a winner no matter how me may actually performs, and the same can be said about most Republicans and their candidate. Even if they think their guy lost a debate, it's not going to change their mind about voting for him or her.

I remember the first Bush/Kerry debate at the end of which it seemed very clear to me that Kerry had "won." Yet in the post-debate coverage Sean Hannity said with an entirely straight face that he never heard the president speak with such eloquence. I think he actually believed it although it was obviously not the case. I suspect when Bush beat Kerry in later debates, liberal pundits refused to acknowledge it. No matter what the result of these debates I was going to and did vote for Bush.

I am sure there are many like me on the opposite end of the spectrum who are able to recognize if Obama performs poorly in a debate, but it won't change their mind about voting for him.

To the extent that these debates have any impact on the election, it will be with those who have not made up their minds already that they are voting for Obama. Coming across as arrogant and dismissive could be enough to push a voter in the opposite direction.

If the Democratic base was larger enough to propel Obama into a second term, it really won't matter how he does in a debate, but it isn't.

His falling poll numbers aren't the result of a significant number of the members of his base losing their support for him, and he never had significant support from the Republican base. The people he is losing are Independents and Moderates.

Yes, it does; it only shows you have no balance in your criticisms.

As most would agree, most presidents show some arrogance. You only identify Obama.

It's that bounding up every flight of steps that gives him away. He's one of those "bouncing on the balls of his feet" type of chap. He's in denial that he's going fucked like what I am.

It's pretty arrogant to be in denial of an inevitable force of nature. I bet he admires his muscle contours in idle moments.

Did you get beat up a lot when you were a kid?

No, but I fought alot, because I wore glasses, and the kids stopped teasing me when I fought back.

Why? You a psychiatrist?

The glasses were just an excuse. It was because you were a twat.

UVA's Larry Sabato came out at the end of last week with his Crystal Ball projection of electoral college votes in a race between Obama and a Republican. His 1st version, which came out a couple of months ago, had Obama winning rather handily. Sabato now has it as essentially tied. He starts with a disclaimer that the election is 14 months off and we don't know who the Repub will be and... etc.
I would add that Sabato is one of many pundits and some suggest he leans to the left.
270 electoral votes are needed to win a majority of the of the 538 available.
Sabato has Obama (assuming he is the Dem candidate) with 175 in the Safe category and 21 more listed as Likely. A total of 196.
He has the Republican candidate with 105 Safe and 65 Likely = 170.
The category of Leans Dem includes Michigan (16 votes), New Mexico (5), Pennsylvania (20) and Wisconsin (10) would add 51 for Obama and bring his total to 221.
States considered as Leans Repub include Indiana (11), Missouri (10) and North Carolina (15) would add 36 to the Repub total for a total of 206.
That would get us to 7 states with 85 electoral votes listed as toss-ups: Colorado (9), Florida (29), Iowa (6), Nevada (6), New Hampshire (4), Ohio (18) and Virginia (13).
Sabato concludes that could be a tie or a win by one party or the other by a margin of 273-265 at most.

That should give the movers and shakers in Colorado , Florida , Iowa , Nevada , New Hampshire , Ohio and Virginia a bit of leverage.

Interesting. Now we all must consider whether the next 14 months are likely ro raise Obama's stature with voters. Many possibilities here, but in the main I believe the most likely outcome is that he will lose some ground.

His release today of the promised details of his jobs plan involves yet another one of his now familiar sneaky gotcha moves. He wants to pay for it with a series of eliminations of deductions from income for "wealthy" taxpayers (income over $200K) that look like an itemized list of sound bites and talking points for a political speech. I doubt that he could have found a more effective way to squash any impulse for compromise amoumg Republicans - and that is very likely his purpose here. Yet another data point in the litany of juvenile BS from this guy. The incredible shrinking star !

Well said, George. It appears to me that he intends to spend gobs more money, and by asking the Republicans to help find the savings in the budget to pay for it all, he will use that as campaign material to demonize Republicans for any cutbacks that proveununpopular with the people. He wants to do what he wants without any responsibility of consequencesfor him.

I don't quite agree. I think he is very cynically trying to position himself as close to the center as his strident union and progressive supporters will allow while trying to embarass republicans into violating their no tax hike pledges. In short, in a very serious national crisis, he is playing his familiar high school level politics with our collective fates.

His latest jobs plan has little chance of doing anything detectable on unemployment, and I'm quite sure he and his advisors know that by now. He is instead lookiung to score a few political points and confuse the oposition in the hopes that the mere passage of time will heal his situation enough so that, in a year's time, he will be able to claim success while confounding his political opponents and giving himself some sound bites for the campaign.

So far the Republicans have kept fairly silent - and wisely I believe. Let Obama play his high school tricks, stay silent and let his evident cynacism and lack of constructive purpose become evident all by itself.

George,I don't think we are far apart on our view of it. I cannot honestly claim to know how Obama's mind works or the exact strategy he is trying to employ at any paticular point in time, except that I believe it is largely political and self serving rather than a realistic policy to solve our economic woes. I find it interesting that your take on him is much how I judged him after reading his book Audacity Of Hope during his presidential campaign.

Well I agree that we can't really know what or how he thinks and what are his real inner intentions. I tried to keep a fairly open mind about him through his first year in office, but by now a pretty clear pattern has emerged in his actions, and I am merely assuming it is all deliberate and that his intentions can be effectively inferred from his actions.

It isn't libel to be called a racist, it is an honor to honorable people.

What IS the truth, my man?

I wonder if waterman is more like a shock jock than a racist? I don't know the man, so can only judge by his posts. Perhaps in a moment of candor, he could tell us honestly?

I don't know that it's possible to not be a racist. Posturing as not being a racist notwithstanding and giving the self a virtue stripe. And angling for votes and approval.

I don't think we can help being racists to some degree. Those who are called racist are just more honest about it. Anybody engaging in illegal acts is a criminal.

And it doesn't need to hate the other races either. It doesn't need to disrespect them by recognising the differences.

Do you buy your sheets at Walmart?