TNR BLOGS

January 08, 2009 | 8:20 PM
January 08, 2009 | 8:00 PM
January 08, 2009 | 6:03 PM

January 07, 2009 | 12:20 PM
January 07, 2009 | 12:13 PM
January 07, 2009 | 9:41 AM

January 08, 2009 | 6:31 PM
January 08, 2009 | 4:13 PM
January 08, 2009 | 2:50 PM

July 26, 2008 | 2:24 PM
July 23, 2008 | 1:55 PM
July 17, 2008 | 3:56 PM

January 08, 2009 | 5:12 PM
January 08, 2009 | 3:25 PM
January 08, 2009 | 1:16 PM
COLUMNISTS
TODAY'S STORIES
25.02.2008
The Smart-Aleck vs. The Statesman

The New York Times yesterday published a piece on Barack Obama's increasing "cockiness" on the campaign trail now that he has all but sewn up the Democratic nomination. Obama has certainly had a charmed career, due largely to a string of incompenent opponents that made his winning a U.S. Senate seat rather easy. His meteoric rise and fawning press coverage has endowed him with an arrogance which is becoming all too apparent. Up until recently, for instance, Obama had been referring to John McCain's "half-century of service" to his country, the sort of wise-acre crack one would expect from a high school show-off.

Perhaps Obama feels he can act this way because he's still in the Democratic primary, where cheap shots at his opponent's age win laughter and applause. But maybe his strategists believe that focusing on McCain's age will work in the general as part of their "change" narrative. This tactic is a double-edged sword, however, as hinting that McCain is too old (and all that being "too old" implies: his war record, his decades in Congress, the voluminous legislation he has passed, etc.) opens up Obama to the obvious criticism that he is too young. Once Obama is on stage across from McCain, this haughtiness will immediately become off-putting. I predict a replay of the famous 1984 presidential debate between Ronald Reagan and Walter Mondale. Pitted against an enormously popular president, Democrats decided to attack Reagan for being too old -- he was 73 at the time, two years older than McCain is today. Reagan rebuffed those efforts by reassuring his audience that, "I am not going to exploit, for political purposes, my opponent's youth and inexperience." John McCain has a similar wit, and don't be surprised if he uses it.

--James Kirchick

Posted: Monday, February 25, 2008 12:12 PM with 55 comment(s)

Comments

You must be logged-in to comment.

Not a subscriber? Click here to get a digital or print and digital subscription to The New Republic!

BryanRDC said:

So Obama is "cocky," and we know the truth about Hillary thanks to Citizens United N.T. I'm shocked to find the NY Times stooping to the level and tactics of Roger Stone.

February 25, 2008 12:37 PM

epicciuto said:

While Obama's moments of cockiness don't bother me at all (I prefer it to false modesty, if one has to go one way or the other), I think that will be a much bigger problem for him than the age issue will. Some people don't react well to what Obama's aloofness or cockiness, and I agree that will work against him. But I really don't see that age is going to ever be an advantage for McCain. The inexperience tactic has not yet worked against Obama. His vigor is quite noticeable in contrast to McCain, as evidenced by cuts from a McCain victory speech to an Obama victory speech.

As for acting like a sniggering adolescent, well, if Obama does that, it's certainly not like McCain doesn't. McCain spent several debates sniggering at Romney in what seemed to me an adolescent way (the "candidate of change" line, for one -- he culd barely keep himself from cracking himself up as he said it). I don't think Obama has come off as nearly that sniggering.

February 25, 2008 12:38 PM

Rhubarbs said:

Um, James, McCain himself has used the "fifty years" line quite frequently in recent days. He's also made repeated mention of entering the Naval Academy in 1954.

And the five times I've seen Obama praise McCain's "five decades" of service, it wasn't as a laugh line, and the only applause was of the "Oh, he wants us to applaud for the other guy now? Really? Well, I guess to be polite ..." variety.

And if one were to think about it for even a moment or two, one would realize that the cocky-jock way to phrase this as an attack would be to praise McCain for "six decades" of service, not five, since his service spans the 50s, 60s, 70s, 80s, 90s, and 00s.

But, hey, yeah, I'm sure they're making up crap like this over at The Corner right now, too, so better get in on the action, right? Never mind whether Obama has actually used the "five decades" line in the way you describe, and therefore whether the substance of your critique is actually true.

February 25, 2008 12:43 PM

teplukhin2you said:

THe way to defeat McCain is to expose and run circles around his economic ignorance. Problem is, I don't see Obama as being terribly deep on matters of tax and spending and financial markets and capital flows, either. Maybe I'm wrong, but IIUC he hasn't authored any legislation, ever, in his career dealing with financial or tax matters.

February 25, 2008 12:45 PM

huntlib said:

TNR,

Please, please get rid of this piece of shit writer. What the hell is this mediocrity still doing around here?

February 25, 2008 12:49 PM

miceelf said:

Jeez, as veiled attacks on McCain's age go, this is incredibly mild.

February 25, 2008 12:50 PM

Androscoggin said:

Nice work, Jamie. Naturally you had to throw in a few snide comments, and as usual you don't offer any particular insight or new information, but on the bright side, your enraged hyperbole score is down slightly.

Your posts are hard to argue with because they have very little factual content. It's all opinion. So I'll respond with some opinions of my own: Obama isn't particularly "haughty"; you're misinterpreting his comment about a "half-century of service"; Democrats aren't any more likely to appreciate "cheap shots" than are Republicans (which is not to concede that Obama has been making such cheap shots or that Democrats have been laughing and applauding, as you suggest); and the analogy between Obama and Mondale is laughable.

There are some interesting things to be said about how Obama's demeanor will work in a debate with McCain, about the impact of their age differences, about whether Obama will have to adjust his style, etc. Unfortunately, none of them are in your post.

February 25, 2008 12:59 PM

mpatrickhendri said:

Jamie, do you have naked pictures of Chait?

February 25, 2008 1:00 PM

tnmats said:

I read the NYT story and I didn't see cocky there, just someone who's ahead, knows it, and acts confidently.  There's a problem with that?

Seems our dear Mr. K thinks of BO the way his mentor thinks of HRC.  In other words, their respective nemesis can never do anything right no matter what.  Best to ignore the M&J show.  What hurts is their blather is just feeding the right wing machine.

February 25, 2008 1:09 PM

jjridge said:

Jamie - have you watched McCain in any of the debates?  He may say he was a foot soldier in Reagan's army but his debate style is miles away from Reagan. McCain's shown flashes of sneering contempt and seething anger and resentment against Romney, not the coolness under fire and good natured humor that Reagan projected. Obama, if anything, comes off as too cool and dismissive (likable enough) rather than hotheaded and over the top.  The debates may end up more like Clinton vs. Bob Dole (stop lying about my record against Bush) than another race.

February 25, 2008 1:47 PM

medan said:

What Rhubarbs said.

Honestly, Kirchick is just annoying.

February 25, 2008 1:51 PM

mpatrickhendri said:

By "haughty" do you mean "uppity"? Is this a racist slur? By Jamie's reasoning, you would have to answer in the affirmative.

February 25, 2008 1:52 PM

gary21cp said:

I was at the Austin rally that was the focus of the NYT article, so I heard the speech that was

characterized as a display of Obama's "cockiness."

There was one overriding feature of this rally: it was almost entirely young people, especially college students. Sure there were other ages present, and people with kids, but the crowd was overwhelmingly college-age or younger. They had sat through a long wait, which was softened by Obama's pretty good DJ, whoever he is, playing music over the (loud) PA system.

In other words, this was NOT a speech to a room full of Kiwanians or party donors or whatever other image you care to conjure up about a typical boring political event.

So the way that Obama spoke to the crowd was completely appropriate and understandable, from my mid-50's point of view. The crowd had just come off listening to a hard-pounding James Brown funk groove -- what's Obama going to do after that, put everyone to sleep?

By the way, I think the last line in the NYT piece says something about what motivated this article.

February 25, 2008 2:00 PM

ralphnelle said:

Ridiculous post. What world do you inhabit?

Not only is the "Obama is cocky" critique overstated, as others have pointed out, the worry about cockiness is unnecessary. Americans like a certain amount of cockiness (Jordan's "I can do anything with the ball" comments from his early days come to mind for me), just as long as it isn't cruel or cheap, as Obama's is not. I'm not sure how we could expect the man to lead if he weren't sure of himself, comfortable in his own skin and decisions, etc.

As for a repeat of 1984, I don't see it. One has to be pretty unfamiliar with Obama as a candidate to have these worries. Compare his gentlemanly comportment in recent debates with Hillary to McCain's mean-spirited, intellectually dishonest, and generally unfair performance in the CA debate. In my mind, Obama looks like the superior statesman in that face-to-face.

February 25, 2008 2:00 PM

sprechs said:

can't say that I agree, but it is refreshing to see that there's one TNR writer who hasn't totally drunk the obama-aid.  

February 25, 2008 2:07 PM

marcellusw101 said:

Right, because it's not as if a former Navy flying ace who once compared himself to Luke Skywalker and sports a platinum blond trophy wife has any problems with arrogance. HRC, Obama, McCain: Please show me the humble, reluctant statesman among these three. Ego is a part of the job description when running for President, and McCain's own cockiness (a matter of survival for elite military pilots) makes appearances on the stump regularly.

I understand Jamie doesn't like Obama's on-stage attitude, as he constantly criticizes it here and elsewhere. Hey, JK: WE GET IT. Now please show us some indication that a majority of the electorate is as prissy about a younger black dude showing a little 'tude as you are.

February 25, 2008 2:23 PM

arsonplus said:

Either Obama is Mondale or Hart James. Make up  your mind then continue your critique.

February 25, 2008 2:27 PM

The Ignorant Populist said:

Sprechs - Jamie has to carve out a career for himself, therefoe he takes the unpopular stance more often than not. This, and his age, has more to do with his posts than any well thought out point of view.

February 25, 2008 2:32 PM

blackton said:

boy mini-me, Marty is going to be angry at you if you keep this up. I guess since you don't like Obama but Marty does, but you both have the same posting style, I suppose we should call you semi-mini-me.

As to this contentless posting, rhubarbs nailed it.

February 25, 2008 2:34 PM

WoodyBombay said:

I guess that if Obama gets the nom we can expect a couple of idiotic posts per week like this one. The Kirchick Schtick will save us from having to click over to NRO for this sort of shallow, petty invective.

So, uh ... thanks ...?

February 25, 2008 2:51 PM

BHLnyc said:

Mr. Kirchik, would you kindly explain to me how being saluted for your "half century of service" to the nation translates into a "cheap shot."

I hope that when I'm at my job at 50 years I'm equally insulted.

February 25, 2008 2:58 PM

tomeg said:

Beware the spurned woman. Or, should I say "beware the spurned woman" card. Clinton's show of righteous anger could be calculated to goad Obama into saying something that she in turn could play up to paint Obama as sexist, or simply disrespectful - cocky young (black) man dissing 1. a sister; wife, mother (especially mother where young latinos are concerned).

I can feel it my bones. Guys, listen up, Hillary could play the spurned woman to the max, while we helplessly watch in bewilderment.

February 25, 2008 3:03 PM

jm_rice said:

Good observation, Kirchick. (Wow, did I say that?)  Sorry, Muchachos, he's right.

No, the praise for "five decades of service" was not sincere.  It was meant to say, "Thanks, Old-timer, now here's your gold watch."

Not sure if Obama himself is the smart-aleck or if he's adopted the persona his smart-aleck handlers have handed him.  Remember, McCain manages himself, while Obama, like Reagan and the current Bush, is managed.  A managed Republican president succeeded by a managed Democratic president.  Wow, that's some change.

February 25, 2008 3:08 PM

williamyard said:

I wish McCain were a stronger candidate, not a few kernels short of a cob, as is his wont.

I fear he will give Obama too easy a time of it--flailing when he should parry, backpedaling when he should keep his knees high, leaning into the hills.  Nothing wrong with being old, as long as you don't tire easily, stammer, forget, flop sweat. Youngsters pick up on such telltale signs in a heartbeat, lower their horns--next thing you know, you're out. Just a battered old buck staring longingly from the periphery while the newcomer's nostrils flare from the musk of proximate does.

Obama could use a better sparing partner than Clinton and a better opponent than McCain. He will have his hands full come January; his (our) enemies wear cammies, not orange vests.

February 25, 2008 3:20 PM

WoodyBombay said:

"McCain manages himself"

Now, THAT'S funny!

Everyone knows that lobbyists manage McCain.

February 25, 2008 3:24 PM

adamvaught said:

Maybe this post shouldn’t be dismissed. I mean, if anyone is an expert on being young, arrogant, and taking cheap shots, it’s Jamie Kirchick.  

February 25, 2008 3:24 PM

stgla said:

jm_rice -- While the NYT article on McCain was half-baked on McCain being in bed (literally) with lobbyists, it did show him being "managed."

February 25, 2008 3:27 PM

teplukhin2you said:

A mild dissent to the prevailing view here-- not so much on this particular post, or on Kirchick, but on the very clear and present danger of TNR Talk becoming a Kool-Aid Saloon a la KosPowerline or LittleGreenFiredoggies and their ilk. Obviously the TNR scribes, Kirchick excepted, are solidly behind Obama and hoping fervently for his election. For most of them it would be Morning in America, perhaps the first time in their lives that their personal, political, and professional interests all seamlessly aligned. Nothing like a union of one's beliefs and one's pocketbook for creating missionary fervor. And hey, if I were still a young turk and forced to cover the rolling BS parade known as US politics, I'd climb on board the Obama wagon too-- if only because it represents a fresh chance to write intelligently and honestly about an intelligent and honest president.

But the Kool Aid danger is real, and leads inexorably to disasrous errors in judgment, of which the latest is TNR's breathless article about the NYT's "bombshell," in TNR's words, about McCain. The story was crap. TNR's story about the story wasn't so much about the story being crap but about why the NYT sat on a real story. In other words, TNR _compounded_ the NYT f***-up, and made itself look bad.

The Beauchamp affair was nothing, another of these totally ginned-up Patriotically Correct outrages du jour, and it had no consequence then, has none now (I had to struggle to remember his name). But the NYT story is a major screw-up. More such will happen if you keep downing that Kool-Aid, from any quarter.

February 25, 2008 3:40 PM

AaronBBrown said:

James Kirchick

You're just an angry hack who scribbles with the flair of a bureaucratic wet noodle, face it, you can't write your way out of a paper bag, so put down your chicken feather and start looking for another job, because writing is not your forte.  :-)

jm_rice

What the hell are you doing back here, I thought TNR had the place fumigated for creepy crawlies.  So crawl back into the rat hole you oozed out of cretin.  :-)

February 25, 2008 4:11 PM

thejauntyboulevardier said:

cocky...what's next...articulate?  

Flash back to McCain's incredibly snide and demeaning manner towards poor old Dash Riprock (aka Mitt Romney) during the debates after Iowa. I heard no Kirchick scolding towards McCain for that incredibly cocky and bullying performance.

and I second adamvaught...if anyone should have a high tolerance for arrogant, youthful, cheap shot proclivities that person is one James "Jamie" Kirchick...

February 25, 2008 4:42 PM

marcellusw101 said:

Tep, got to disagree about TNR being in the tank for Obama. A number of TNR writers were behind other Dem nominees at some point (Edwards most prominently, and remember the Dodd boomlet?), but most of them seem to have coalesced around Obama. There are a number of holdouts - Kirchick, Wieselter, possibly Cottle as well though she's hard to read. In other words, they have mirrored the Democratic electorate as a whole.

I don't think you could ever accuse the TNR staff of drinking anyone's Kool Aid. That a majority of the writers at a moderate-liberal publication have gravitated towards Obama speaks well of him, not ill of the writers themselves or of any other candidate.

P.S. AaronB: CHILL dude. Nice smiley-face emoticons after the hatchet jobs on Kirchick and Rice though.

February 25, 2008 4:48 PM

blackton said:

Tep, come on, do you really think we are not going to take McCain seriously here? Obama against McCain will be a real campaign with geniune contrast. I didn't read that article about the NYTimes the way you did. They (and we) have known about it for a while (as you yourself alluded to it before supertuesday), the fact that the NYTimes held on to it and the reasons they did are newsworthy.

I think most of the snide comments have been in regard to the incredibly lame campaign of Hillary. Could you imagine McCains crowd pulling up his kindergarten essays? His clothing in Kenya? Because they won't be laughable, we won't be laughing.

February 25, 2008 5:48 PM

teplukhin2you said:

Well, Marcellus, you may be right, but I can sense a distinct change in tone. The smirks 'n' sneers are invariably directed at HRC and McC but never at Obama. As williamyard has pointed out and others increasingly are noticing, Obama's getting a fairly easy ride.

Bottom line is that he needs to make a better defense of not Obama-ism but * liberalism *.  Otherwise, it won't be at all clear what exactly his mandate is for. I myself still have no real idea what he's about-- his record is furthest to the left of anyone seen in the Senate since Wellstone, and yet we're being told that he's going to bring all sorts of moderate Republicans on board? WTF?

Soon there will be gaping cracks in his coalition that mingles antiwar lefties and moderate Repubs as well as moderate DLCers and interventionist populists. Kudos to him for running a shrewd campaign, but sooner or later he has to show us whether he's a DLCer or a Kucinich. But pretending that he doesn't offer any contradictions and giving him a free pass isn't really good for anyone.

I expect a harder line from TNR, but maybe that's just me.

rgds

t

February 25, 2008 5:56 PM

jm_rice said:

To repeat from another thread, anyone who thinks someone who has been in elective office for 25 years has not been influenced by lobbyists needs to get out of bed now and then.  As for being "managed," it's a relative thing.  

McCain demonstrated his self-management when his back was to the wall last year, virtually broke and unstaffed. (If McCain were managed by lobbyists, his campaign would be far better financed.) Then, there's the only significant campaign finance law, McCain-Feingold, not exactly a lobbyist favorite.  Then, there's the fact that conservatives don't like him, because he's on record as telling their lobbyists to go fuck off.

Obama can be nothing but managed.  It's just a fact of life, not his fault -- he can't possibly act as president without people holding his hand, like the incumbant -- but that doesn't stop his unhinged fans from screaming Blasphemy! and Lèse majesté! at the suggestion.  The venomous Brownie is a case in point.

Hey, Jaunty, you're right, McCain does have his gumpy-old-men moments, and frankly I'm sorry Romney is out, because he's very smart, attractive and talented and is a victim of gross bigotry, which his father, in we like to think a more benighted era, didn't suffer.  

Look, I'm not nuts for Hillary, either.  When I close my eyes and listen to her I think of Dick Gephart in drag.  The party had the chance to promote some good generic guys, who would have made toast of whoever the other side nominated.  But instead, the they're apparently opting for bling.

February 25, 2008 6:06 PM

jm_rice said:

"I don't think you could ever accuse the TNR staff of drinking anyone's Kool Aid."

Marcellus, have you caught the almost religious panegyrics of Peretz and Judis?  And most of the Plank crowd?  Maybe not drinking the Kool Aid yet, but definitely boarding the flight to Jonestown.  Wieseltier stands out as a skeptic.  As for Kirchick, maybe Obama hasn't come out as forthright for gay marriage as he'd like.

February 25, 2008 6:26 PM

newdex said:

Attention Obama supporters:  

This is how it starts.  I suppose you could say Obama is a little cocky at times, maybe.  Not especially surprising, in my opinion, and not necessarily a bad thing either.  Just watch, though, as he wins the nomination, and before you know it . . . all the droning Kirchicks in the media world become obsessively tuned in to every tiny, offhand, trivial little anecdote they can find - real or made up - confirming Obama's arogant cockiness.  Before long Obama's "cockiness problem" is a major factor and everything he says and does becomes another example of his arrogance.  Will Americans really pick a smooth talking arrogant young know-it-all instead of a straight-talking wisened old warrior?  

February 25, 2008 7:45 PM

ChanRobt said:

"Experience" didn't work for Hillary because she didn't really have the kind of experience she was implying.

McCain, on the other hand, has genuine and relevant experience.

the other problem Hillary has, when she goes out of her way to be pleasant, as she did during the last two debates, she actually is appealing.  

But, the minute she tries to take a whip to Obama, it just doesn't work.  She is an unpleasant old shrew when she tries to get loud and tough.

McCain, used to real command in the Navy embodies natural authority.  And he never yells nor keens.  Hillary is not really a leader, and when she  lays it on, dissipates the confidence of her audience.

You can see it when Fox and CNN let the focus groups dial her up and down.

February 25, 2008 7:52 PM

ChanRobt said:

I believe Obama's problem, once he gets Hillary out of the way, is he's not going to wear well.

His stchick doesn't have a lot of bandwidth.  Now, he's smart.  Maybe he can add more frosting on his cake.  

But, if I'm getting bored with his speech, what about the people on his plane?

February 25, 2008 7:57 PM

tomeg said:

jm_rice, I posted this question to you over at talkback/judis this p.m.:

Whom do you lean toward for Prez now, if anyone?

February 25, 2008 8:30 PM

mikelifsey said:

I don't remember the Democrats making some sort of strategic decision to attack Reagan's age in 1984.  I think it was driven by his poor performance in the first debate.  He seemed forgetful and a little out of it.  This prompted a lot of media talk about whether he was getting too old.  I think one of the debate questioners asked him about his age and he gave that line.

Of course, my memory may be wrong, I'm getting old.  :)

February 25, 2008 9:19 PM

schat747 said:

If I wanted to read mindless reactionary/conservative driverl I would click over to NRO or Michelle Malkin. Leave TNR aloe Kirchik.

February 25, 2008 10:26 PM

schat747 said:

If I wanted to read mindless reactionary/conservative driverl I would click over to NRO or Michelle Malkin. Leave TNR aloe Kirchik.

February 25, 2008 10:26 PM

tomeg said:

I never liked Kool Aid, so no appeal there. I do support Obama, though with reservations. I'm as much or more interested in the effect he may have on the Democratic Party as what kind of President he would make; an open question concerning the latter. It boils down to this: is Obama's potential sufficiently promising to outweigh the virtues (and vices) of the Clintons' sequel. Unfortunately, I don't think you can have one without the other. Even so, in the event that Hillary would be her own woman, the prospects are too ghastly to contemplate. It will be divisive and caustic enough with any Democrat in the White House, but with Hillary relations with the GOP and the hyper-conservative wings could easily build to nuclear proportions. Lobbyists won't be entertained, they'll be fat and sassy and compared to a McCain administration.

I don't know yet how I would feel about a McCain presidency. He's something of a question mark, too, and a loose board. He might rise to the office or he might not. I'd take him any day over Clinton, regardless.

Concerning Obama, something Chan brought up in another thread, a question that Obama may not have enough generational depth in his American background, if that's the way to put it. It sticks in my mind and I haven't a ready answer, and that bothers me. I don't know what any of the rest of you might think about this. For me it resonates in some deep place that I can't ignore or set aside, yet anyway.

February 25, 2008 10:58 PM

sconover said:

I don't usually comment, but this is a pretty horrible piece of writing.  I was sure this was irony until the end of the post.  Now I'm wondering if James Kirchick has actually seen an Obama speech referencing McCain - the line about McCain's years of service is clearly, obviously respectful.  He pivots to make substantive criticisms of McCain but that's fair.

Are TNR bloggers expected to get off their asses and do even a minimal amount of research?  5 minutes on youtube, even?

February 25, 2008 11:29 PM

jm_rice said:

tomeg, I lean to McCain only because I lean away from Obama.  I've always believed the primary purpose of the Democratic party is to protect us from the Republicans.  I don't see McCain as that kind of threat.

That said, I think anyone leaning to McCain must wait to see who winds up on the ticket with him.  Because of his age and the cancer, McCain has an "actuarial" issue.  A problem for me is that McCain chooses a neanderthal from the right to balance the ticket, to keep the wingnuts from going fishing on election day.

Unless McCain chooses a real stinker I don't think a Dem would have to hold his nose to vote for him.  I usually vote a straight Dem ticket, but I voted Schwarzenneger last time because he's been such a great governor that I forgive him his Repug affiliation.  Ditto McCain, because to me his depth compared to Obama's renders his GOP affiliation a venial sin.  And remember, he came within a hair actually of becoming a Democrat.  It's likely he demurred only because he still had an '08 run in mind and wouldn't have stood a chance of being nominated if he jumped parties. (see Wayne Morse)

So, I guess if I do wind up voting for McCain I can tell my conscience that I'm almost voting Democrat. ;)

February 26, 2008 12:34 AM

jm_rice said:

PS tomeg:  about Chan's "generational depth," it doesn't really bother me.  I wouldn't care if his people came over on the Mayflower, to me he lacks depth, biographical depth. Elsewhere I've mentioned his name and the Muslim connection.  This seems to have got some panties in a wad.  They say the name thing is trivial and the Muslim thing spurious.  Nevertheless I think it will matter to many voters.  If you listen to call-in shows -- I do but can only take small doses before nausea sets in -- you hear deep, abiding animus towards anything Muslim and resentment towards anything foreign and effete.  Obama has a Muslim connection, innocuous as it may be, and he has a foreign background and he has an effete -- academic, liberal, élite school -- connection.  None of this should matter, but there it is.

Obama is a gimmick candidate, and if he's the nominee, then you'll see lots of people voting in order to keep "somebody like that" from becoming president.  I know that's anathema in these rarified precincts, but it's still reality.  If he had more depth, a record, more of a background than his "exotic" one -- Kenya, Indonesia, biracial parents, family divorces, peregrinations, an "outspoken" wife -- he would have more with which to smother the ignoble sentiments.  But he doesn't.  This is a fundamental problem for the candidacy.  Yet the Obama band plays on, and party lemmings seem to be in stampede mode.

February 26, 2008 1:24 AM

thejauntyboulevardier said:

jimbo

I don't quite follow you...you intimate that the xenophobic insinuations against Obama are "ignoble" and somewhat embarrassing...

and then you appear to give these ignoble sentiments complete creedence in your endorsment of McCain.

Outspoken wife? Divorces? Who are we talking about? McCain? Guiliani? Reagan? or Obama!

Biracial parents? Yes, this is groundbreaking but aside from a hard core white identity core of voters, this does not seem to be a disqualiflier, or at least people seem to be okay with it.

Hey, you and Channy can support whomever you like but don't try to sugar coat it with some sort of hyper realistic illusion of your "reality based" truth telling. The truth is that you and my man o'channy are more confortable with divorced, white, male conservatives.  There is nothing necessarily wrong with that, unless of course, you are really ashamed to say it out loud.

February 26, 2008 11:19 AM

tomeg said:

I can't suppress it any longer. Hillary Clinton is the worst possible choice for Democratic Party nominee I can think of or imagine. I would support Obama for that reason alone. In fact I do support him for that reason, which trumps every other consideration or doubt. I wish it might have been Biden to choose, but it's not.

1. The Clintons had their turn, they did their best (and their worst) and now it's time to move on.

2. Much as I fondly remember the 1990s (though I don't know why beyond some vague fantasy), the Clintons have a much more ample and extended history in politics, and their shenanigans to a great extent sank the party's boat in 2000, and quite possibly 2004.

3. Obama has the modesty and good sense, policy-wise, to propose step by step change in health care financing, foster a healthier climate for labor and business to collaborate in areas of mutual interest, while retaining competitiveness where it works best.

 Hillary, au contraire, has indulged in pandering on almost every kitchen table issue, closed ended "solutions" to every problem and every budget. She says only she can blah blah blah and it's always about her. Obama has his own ego enlargement problem, but he doesn't claim he IS America, while she definitely does.

I could go on, but in the spirit of good will it would be better to sum up: basta, enough! Obama 2008, whether you like him or not.

February 26, 2008 12:19 PM

butchie b said:

Yes, jm, that's what's so shocking to me - the lemming stampede.  Doesn't matter what the Clintons say, or how they say it, or even if they were silent - the historical freight train that is BHO speeds forward.

Like you, I consider him green as grass and lighter than air.  People compare him to Kennedy, forgetting that JFK came from lots of money and political experience, and had served 14 years in Congress before he ran in 1960.  He came in with Nixon in 46.

Obama is simply a cultural phenomenon.  McCain has a good chance to win, but it should be very close.  That said, long way to go before November.

I, too, find teh Muslim/name thing deeply stupid.  I pray people won't vote against this man on that basis, but I fear you are right.  Better for my guy, I suppose, but damaging to the political fabric.

Tomeg, HRC is simply a bad politician - no grace, no likability.  She's Nixon in a pantsuit. Only obviously not as good at it as he was.

February 26, 2008 1:16 PM

tomeg said:

butchie,

I admit you may be right about Obama - greener, lighter. It's gonna take a while to get the rust out of my vote Republican extensor, but I think you're right about McCain, too, so I guess I'll have to try. I still have hope for Barack, if not a lot else for the moment.

February 26, 2008 1:35 PM

jm_rice said:

Desi, there are two separate issues in the nominating process, suitability and electability.  As to suitability, as I said to tomeg, whether Obama's people came over on the Mayflower or whether he's first-generation, I don't care.  The "depth" I see lacking in Obama is experience, not pedigree.  Electability is not a matter of who I think is suitable but who I believe most voters -- the voters who will elect the next president -- think is suitable.  I believe that certain factors, no matter how extraneous or unworthy they are, will come into play in the election.  I listed some of them.  Yes indeed, divorce will cost the other guys you list votes -- it already helped put Giuliani out of the race. (I meant the muliple divorces Obama's family and its peregrinations' contributing to the "rootless" impression.)  Look, I think the bigotry by McCain's fellow Baptists over Romney''s Mormonism was utterly vile.  Do I think it was valid to list it as a negative?  Of course!

Just to review with you:  I'm strongly pro-labor, strongly for regulation of business (the more the better), strongly for single-payer universal healthcare, strongly anti-handgun, strongly gay rights, want far more state/federal support for vocational training, believe the state of mental health, child and aged care facilities is a disgrace, i.e. for higher taxes across the board and think they should be more progressive.  Does that sound conservative to you?

You're from California, so you should understand why a liberal Democrat could vote for Ahnold and not be an apostate.  Same about McCain.  Sometimes the competence factor is so compelling that it should transcend philosophy.  Please read my posts to tomeg.  If McCain had jumped parties, as he almost did, and was running, would you still be reviling me?

Speaking of bigotry, what have you against divorced white males? (Did you forget "old"?)

February 26, 2008 1:41 PM

thejauntyboulevardier said:

jimbo

Thanks.  I went back and read your posts to Tom.

I think that there are good reasons to vote for McCain. He is experienced and given the natural bent of politicians, he is credible and trustworthy on most issues. I thought the NYT's story against him was low down and am glad that they got that right back in the face. They had no proof that McCain was, in fact, itching for some blond strange and absent that, they should have pulled the story.  Hell, I am always itching for strange, of any hair color, but haven't had any in 18 years. But have I thought about it?  Ever' freakin' day laddie....

I also think that Obama can beat McCain in the fall because if experience and trustworthiness determined presdential elections, we would have had Bob Dole in the office from 96-04.

It would have been nice if you completely and forcefully rejected the jejune campaign riffs that you referenced though...

February 26, 2008 4:52 PM

ChanRobt said:

jm_rice, re, "...Obama is a gimmick candidate, and if he's the nominee, then you'll see lots of people voting in order to keep "somebody like that" from becoming president."

The gimmick cuts both ways.  A lot of people are for Obama on the very specious grounds that "it's time a black man was president."  Or, "this will show the world how far we've come and how the opportunities in America are for everyone."

The first would be tokenism of the very highest order.  The second, well we don't have anything to prove.  What we have is the need for the best president.  And if someone believes that Obama is the best candidate in the offing, then they ought to vote for him.

My earlier point about Obama not having, on his father's side, first gen roots on American soil, was to observe that this was the most novel thing about him, in historic presidential terms.  We've never elected, for all I know never nominated by either major party, anyone whose family, I believe on both sides, hadn't been here for three generations or more.

You could say that the Constitutional requirment that a president be a native born citizen has been given a of extra buffer for the last 200 plus years.

Some posters have responded to this by saying, we're a much different country now.  In many regards, that's true.  But, it's probably more true for college educated and under forty people who make up a lot our debating society here.

I think it is also fair to say that the opinion of Democratic primary voters has turned out to be very different than that of general election voters.  Democrats thought that McGovern, Dukakis, and second term Jimmy Carter were all reasonable candidates.  And they all got creamed from immensely to a lot.

I will admit, though, that Obama, because he is so novel, is potentially game-changing.  He is consicously attempting to transcend the old rules, is gaining support for that as a concept, and may win the ultimate prize.

And in fact, while his actual politics and policies do not truly appear to represent fundamental change from Democratic dogma, the one thing that would be a change are the particulars of the candidate himself.

February 26, 2008 7:20 PM

ChanRobt said:

jim, for the record McCain had fellow Republicans who were Baptists and were bigoted against Romney.  But, McCain is Episcopal, not a "fellow Baptist".

Butchie, glad you made the point I've made here too, that Jack Kennedy had long national experience before his nomination.  Including even his recognition while still at Harvard for "While England Slept".  And being a serious contender for the '56 VP slot under Stevenson.

But, even more telling, for all his charisma and despite Kennedymania, JFK was elected by one of the slimmest popular margins in history.  And, as even Democrats concede, may very well have only one because of Daly ballot box stuffing in Chicago.

1960 was the first election where TV coverage combined with advertising had become a highly significant factor.  Now it is exponentially more decisive.  

Which is why if he wins the nod, Obama's advantages now could become disadvantages over the next nine months through overexposure, over scrutiny, and Obama fatigue before November.

If he is as light as he is seen by several here, he could by November fall like a soufle left in the oven too long.

February 26, 2008 7:46 PM

jm_rice said:

Thanks ofr the correction, robt.  A post on another thread was from someone who had been offered shares of BFA (Baptist Federation of Arizona, a notorious scam) in their Baptist church by McCain.  So I assumed he was Baptist himself.  Episcopalian isn't near as bad.

February 27, 2008 4:13 PM