Obama '08?

sozobe wrote:

So the debate seems to have gone pretty well. Hillary may have won on points; the end especially seems to have been good. The "Xerox" line seems to have fallen flat and gotten some bad reaction. She didn't do a fight-to-the-death sort of thing -- she seems somewhat resigned to the possibility that she might not win. Of course, that shows vulnerability that may help her. I dunno. I've never really gotten the vulnerability-helping-her thing, even though I believe that it has in the past.

At any rate, there needed to be something big to shake things out of where they are, IMO (and IPO -- In Pundits' Opinions), and that didn't seem to happen. No huge positives for Hillary, no huge negatives for Obama.

Plus I think Obama won a meta-point -- was this debate really necessary? Was new ground really covered?

What I remind myself of though is that of course I've been following things closely for a long time but that doesn't mean every voter has. There may be a bigger impact than I expect in either direction -- those who thought Obama didn't have substance (see, he does) or those who thought Hillary's campaign is already off the rails (she seemed authoritative and calm).

I thought one could argue a tie or that one could argue either one did slightly better than the other. Both competent. No notable wounds.

But in the early debates, Clinton was pretty clearly in charge and Obama stumbled. That has really changed. He's become confident, more knowledgeable and much more adept. He's not a slow-learner, this boy.

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

But why? Why did the New Republic decide to 'out' the NY Times?

Because it's good business. The story has 386 comments now, when normally a TNR story is lucky to get 10. Imagine the page views it must be getting (good for ad revenue), the number of people who have registered just so to make a comment (good for later advertising), the many media which are now mentioning and linking to TNR (good for prestige and indirectly, subscriptions).

Call it a nimh rule: The logic of the bottom line almost always provides a more plausible explanation than any conspiracy theory.

0 Replies

Re: BBB

fishin wrote:

BumbleBeeBoogie wrote:
Obama is gaining support from white males because so many will not, under any circumstances, vote for a woman president. They consider women deficient because they were born without penises.

BBB

And what accounts for his growing support amongst women?

Too many people tend to want to vote for the expected winner than to vote for the expected loser. It's called being a sheep or a lemming. Every ambitious politician knows that if they expect to advance their careers they have to place themselves on the winning side.

BBB

0 Replies

BBB -- I would love to have a woman president. Just not this one.

I expect that a candidate who is both a woman and the best in the field will come along sooner rather than later. But in this particular race? No. And it's insulting to Obama's gifts to lay it all at the feet of sexism.

As nimh says, there are definitely misogynists out there. There are also definitely racists out there. And then there are a bunch of people who would happily vote for a black person or a woman -- who have decided that one or the other of the candidates is better. You have decided Hillary is better, and I won't put that down to racism. How about if you don't put my support of Obama down to sexism...?

0 Replies

nimh wrote:

Call it a nimh rule: The logic of the bottom line almost always provides a more plausible explanation than any conspiracy theory.

I like that rule.

0 Replies

sozobe wrote:

You have decided Hillary is better, and I won't put that down to racism. How about if you don't put my support of Obama down to sexism...?

Beautifully put.

0 Replies

soz-

Have you never considered that women might be better off under male control and thus that what you call "misogynists" have the welfare of women at heart thinking of them in the generality rather than just those few who go around making a big song and dance about it all.

And further, that a lot of women know this but their voice has been silenced by the raucous chorus of the busybodies.

0 Replies

sozobe
Sozobe, I credit your support of Obama to your intelligent research of him and not sexism, obviously, because you are a very smart woman.

I, too, have always want to be able to vote for a woman president and I always thought the Republicans would be the first to offer a woman because they would never support a Democratic woman. Hillary Clinton, in my opinion, is the best prepared to be president from day one, especially for foreign policy issues.

Now, I've have always wanted to vote for an African-American for president. I wonder what would happen if a Black man and a Black woman were candidates at the same time? It turns out that the opportunity arose for a man and not a woman. I'm so dissapointed that two such talented people arose to run for president at the same time. What a dirty trick to play on those of us who dreamed of such opportunities. We had to choose. I chose the person whom I thought was best for the common good of the country at a dangerous time.

BBB

0 Replies

eoe wrote:

sozobe wrote:
You have decided Hillary is better, and I won't put that down to racism. How about if you don't put my support of Obama down to sexism...?

Beautifully put.

No, no, but you misread!

Obama is gaining support from white males because so many will not, under any circumstances, vote for a woman president. It's white guys supporting Obama - you know, like me - who are just doing so because they consider women deficient for being born without penises.

You two are women, so you're not covered by this. You're examples of Obama's growing support amongst women - so your support just demonstrates how many people want to vote for the expected winner rather than the expected loser. You're not sexists at all - you're sheep or lemmings!

There, that better? Razz

0 Replies

freeduck wrote:

Quote:

I saw a lot of it. I thought Obama did much better than usual -- less pausing and much smoother delivery in general. His body language was good, I thought. I thought he answered a couple of attacks very well -- especially the thing about plagiarism but also, indirectly, the "Cult of Obama" hype that's been making the rounds. I thought her attacks fell flat across the board, but she's smart and changed tack. I noticed the change and the delivery in her final point, and everyone seems to think that will play well. Problem for me is, though I recall that her tone and delivery changed in the last question, I don't have any recollection of what she was actually talking about. That might not matter, though, if she can come off as a little more human and connect with people, which I think has been her weakness. She did appear to be borrowing heavily from Edwards, but that's probably to be expected.

I've paid my dues here (who to, I don't quite know) arguing that Hillary has been the victim of nearly two decades of sustained and multi-pronged rightwing propaganda designed to make americans think badly of her. I've argued that this propaganda has effectively used, as part of its technique, gender stereotypes that are abroad in the culture, conscious and unconscious...cold, calculating, ambitous bitch, c*nt, etc.

She has only managed to 'connect emotionally' (as the pundits put it) infrequently in the campaign even though her smarts and knowledge are acknowledge by all. No one including me knows why that is the case - whether a function of her personality or a function of defences she has developed to counter or deal with this history above, or what seems most likely, a combination of these two.

In my view, she's also the victim of fickle fate...to have come up against this extraordinary man at this time.

But how many individuals could come anywhere near standing up to what she has stood up to for nearly two decades, in full public view, and not withered into depression, apathy and just said, "Phuck it all!" and then left public service?

And I do predict, given her exit continues to be as graceful as I consider it has been, particularly recently, that such a valuation or perception of her will grow.

0 Replies

Foxfire said:

Quote:

(I think this lobbyist impropriety scandal has Hillary's fingerprints all over it though. The NY Times endorsed her

There's a case in point. Surely it was Hillary. We know what she's like. And we'll omit mentioning or thinking about the logical oddity that the NY Times also endorsed McCain.

0 Replies

I agree with all of that. She's certainly earned my respect if not my vote.

0 Replies

Re: sozobe

BumbleBeeBoogie wrote:

I'm so dissapointed that two such talented people arose to run for president at the same time. What a dirty trick to play on those of us who dreamed of such opportunities. We had to choose.

OK, more seriously - if i were an American Democrat, I would not be "disappointed" at all by the fact that the two main contenders for the Presidency for my party were a woman and a black man. I would be elated - enthused about just how far my party and my country had come.

Getting to have the choice between two candidates each representing such a historic first, damn - that would make me feel grateful! It's a powerful demonstration of the successes that both the black and the womens emancipation movements have achieved in their long struggles.

No, I wouldnt experience it as a "dirty trick" at all. That seems to me like going out of your way to find a defeat in even the biggest victory. I'd experience it as a luxury - a luxury to take pride in.

0 Replies

Peggy Noonan: Do the Obamas understand America?

Are the Obamas, at bottom, snobs? Do they understand America? Are they of it? Did anyone at their Ivy League universities school them in why one should love America? Do they confuse patriotism with nationalism, or nativism? Are they more inspired by abstractions like "international justice" than by old visions of America as the city on a hill, which is how John Winthrop saw it, and Ronald Reagan and JFK spoke of it?

Have they been, throughout their adulthood, so pampered and praised--so raised in the liberal cocoon--that they are essentially unaware of what and how normal Americans think? And are they, in this, like those cosseted yuppies, the Clintons?

Why is all this actually not a distraction but a real issue? Because Americans have common sense and are bottom line. They think like this. If the president and his first lady are not loyal first to America and its interests, who will be? The president of France? But it's his job to love France, and protect its interests. If America's leaders don't love America tenderly, who will?

And there is a context. So many Americans right now fear they are losing their country, that the old America is slipping away and being replaced by something worse, something formless and hollowed out. They can see we are giving up our sovereignty, that our leaders will not control our borders, that we don't teach the young the old-fashioned love of America, that the government has taken to itself such power, and made things so complex, and at the end of the day when they count up sales tax, property tax, state tax, federal tax they are paying a lot of money to lose the place they loved.

And if you feel you're losing America, you really don't want a couple in the White House whose rope of affection to the country seems lightly held, casual, provisional. America is backing Barack at the moment, so America is good. When it becomes angry with President Barack, will that mean America is bad?

* * *

Michelle Obama seems keenly aware of her struggles, of what it took to rise so high as a black woman in a white country. Fair enough. But I have wondered if it is hard for young African-Americans of her generation, having been drilled in America's sad racial history, having been told about it every day of their lives, to fully apprehend the struggles of others. I wonder if she knows that some people look at her and think "Man, she got it all." Intelligent, strong, tall, beautiful, Princeton, Harvard, black at a time when America was trying to make up for its sins and be helpful, and from a working-class family with two functioning parents who made sure she got to school.

That's the great divide in modern America, whether or not you had a functioning family, and she apparently came from the privileged part of that divide. A lot of white working-class Americans didn't come up with those things. Some of them were raised by a TV and a microwave and love our country anyway, every day.

Does Mrs. Obama know this? I don't know. If she does, love and gratitude for the place that tries to give everyone an equal shot would seem to be in order.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB120362912719783893.html?mod=opinion_main_commentaries

0 Replies

Yep.

BBB, thanks for the compliment. Are you sure that other people who are supporting Obama haven't also done their research, though?

I agree that people are likely to jump on a winning bandwagon. I think that was very much in Hillary's favor for the first chunk of the race, up until Iowa basically. That was an explicit campaign strategy in fact -- paint her as the inevitable nominee, and see endorsements and support flow in.

I've mentioned a few times how I've seen accounts of various unions who liked both Hillary and Obama but decided to back Hillary (pre-Iowa) because they thought she was going to win.

If anything, I think it shows that Obama is the stronger candidate when it comes to fundamentals that he was able to battle through that and get to where he is now. Sure, some people are jumping on the bandwagon now -- not everyone has the time or inclination to carefully consider who to vote for. Some people just want to vote for the winner.

But that's a tendency that benefited Hillary hugely early on. If it's no longer benefiting her, I think Obama gets a lot of credit for that.

0 Replies

eoe said

Quote:

I noticed that she had a smile plastered on her face from beginning to end.

That's unfair. Go back and look at the debates for either party. Plastered smiles and thoughtful head-tilts and chin up are briefed and practiced for these presentations of presidentialness (or whatever the campaign aides determine is required for TV presentation).

Just watch, when anyone of them gives a TV appearance with their endorsing collegues or wives behind them...smiling, nodding in zestful agreement at each accented sentence..."We will win in Iraq, my friends" nod nod nod.

Watch how Barack tends to keep his chin up high in speeches and debates. Watch how he doesn't do this when he's out and about with people. There's a reason for that.

0 Replies

(Yep was to nimh, re: the luxury.)

0 Replies

Re: sozobe

nimh wrote:

BumbleBeeBoogie wrote:
I'm so dissapointed that two such talented people arose to run for president at the same time. What a dirty trick to play on those of us who dreamed of such opportunities. We had to choose.

OK, more seriously - if i were an American Democrat, I would not be "disappointed" at all by the fact that the two main contenders for the Presidency for my party were a woman and a black man. I would be elated - enthused about just how far my party and my country had come.

Getting to have the choice between two candidates each representing such a historic first, damn - that would make me feel grateful! It's a powerful demonstration of the successes that both the black and the womens emancipation movements have achieved in their long struggles.

No, I wouldnt experience it as a "dirty trick" at all. That seems to me like going out of your way to find a defeat in even the biggest victory. I'd experience it as a luxury - a luxury to take pride in.

Absobloodlylutely

0 Replies

nappyheadedhohoho wrote:

Peggy Noonan: Do the Obamas understand America?

Are the Obamas, at bottom, snobs? Do they understand America? Are they of it? Did anyone at their Ivy League universities school them in why one should love America? [..] Have they been, throughout their adulthood, so pampered and praised--so raised in the liberal cocoon--that they are essentially unaware of what and how normal Americans think? And are they, in this, like those cosseted yuppies, the Clintons?

Ah yes, those cosseted yuppies. The Obama's in their snobbish ivory tower - Michelle, that daughter of a city water plant employee and a secretary at Spiegel's catalog store, who grew up in Chicago's South Shore. Barack, who spent years working as community organizer in Chicago, helping low-income residents in public housing developments. And Bill Clinton, that son of a a traveling salesman, who was raised by his alcoholic, abusive step father, who ran an automobile dealership in Hot Springs, Arkansas, with his brother. Children of privilege! How would they know what regular Americans go through, or feel like!

No, then the Republicans. Salt of the earth, they are. In touch with the innermost sentiments of the struggling, American working families. Here, Mitt Romney, that son of a Governor and a Senator, who was named "Willard" after hotel magnate J. Willard Marriott. Went straight from graduating from Harvard to a private equity career that left him with a net worth of $250-500 million. Or Bush, the son of a President, who entered the oil industry after graduating from Harvard, spending his years as chief executive officer before being elected Governor.

Or John McCain, there's a guy who is really aware of what and how normal Americans think! No cossetted yuppie existence for him, in those 26 years he has now spent on end as a US Representative or Senator in the halls of Congress. He may be 72, but his mind is sharp as a tick, and he can better remember what it was like living as a regular, less supremely privileged American twentyseven years ago than Obama can remember his much more recent years outside the hallowed halls of national politics!

Peggy Noonan - silliness embodied.

0 Replies

Re: BBB

BumbleBeeBoogie wrote:

Obama is gaining support from white males because so many will not, under any circumstances, vote for a woman president. They consider women deficient because they were born without penises.

BBB

This is not only a sexist comment itself, you have demeaned yourself by even writing it in the first place.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know