This is frickin' nonsense.  Obama understands that he has to observe certain political norms and he does, and then Henderson slams him for it because he assumes that it is all posturing?  Of course it is.  Does any adult believe that when your hated mother-in-law comes to visit you are supposed to insult her rather than risk being seen as inauthentic?  Totally juvenile, Cinque,  Really.

Go slam Hillary who is busy trashing all the political norms to feed her narcissism.

As someone else pointed out here recently, it is not Obama's supporters who think he walks on water; it is his detractors who thing he should and then slam him because he doesn't.

Here's the 100 years passage in Obama's speech:

"I won't stand here and pretend that there are many good options left in Iraq, but what's not an option is leaving our troops in that country for the next hundred years—especially at a time when our military is overstretched, our nation is isolated, and nearly every other threat to America is being ignored."

If McCain didn't say our troops would potentially be in Iraq for 100 years, then what did he say?

Here's the thing about 100 years.  It may be distorted, but it's still a bad idea.  Even if we aren't fighting the war in Iraq 100 years from now, as some say Democrats claim, it still belies a conception of Iraq that's totally wrong but has been held up by Conservatives since the war first began: The idea that we will turn Iraq into Japan and Germany after 1945, and therefore will have a domestic population totally comfortable with long term US presence of bases on their soil.  This is not going to happen, and it betrays a longterm lack of realism on Iraq.  It stays with McCain's Stay the Course/The Surge works PR move that doesn't address what happens afterward.  If McCain and his camp don't understand the flaw in their analogy, I say Obama is more than welcome to keep hammering him on 100 years.  McCain doesn't seem to have an actual plan for a solution in Iraq, so we may well still have to fight there 100 years later.

PS: As for graciousness and Hillary supporters.  People, it was a hard fought campaign, he won, you came in a close second,  The moment a contest ends, in sports or in politics, the winner is gracious to the loser, and the loser should be gracious to the winner.  Watch a championship game: the moment the clock strikes zero, the winner says it was a hard fought game, the other team was really tough, they're great, never quit, tons of heart.  The loser congratulates the winner on their victory, says they deserve to be the champs, etc.  Doesn't matter if the final margin's one point or 40.  It's called being courteous.  Obama's following the right script, and Hillary isn't.  

I don't particularly like the way that the Obama campaign (and, for that matter, the rest of the Dems) have used the "hundred years" remark.  I'd prefer it if they'd address what McCain actually meant, which was the misguided idea that we could have troops permanently stationed in Iraq without provoking resentment.  And yes, it bothers me more when I hear things like that from Obama than when I hear them from other politicians because Obama should know better.

Still, it's a bit silly to point to a single statement in a 20-some minute speech and proclaim that Obama is a cynic.  What are all of these "divisive things he has said and done" that you refer to? The "bitter" comments?  You don't think he regrets those? What else?

Michelle ALWAYS looks hot.

Michelle ALWAYS looks hot.

You should probably wait a day or two more before you offer any critiques of Obama's speech.  I detect a large amount of haterism in your comments.  That's just from where I'm sitting, your mileage may vary.

Roid, you calling anyone juvenile is preposterous. Cinque can write and think circles sround you. Stop dissin' da brother. Also, Obama can handle himself. Get up off your knees, roid.

his detractors slam him when they think he's being insincere because they're jealous.

"It wasn't "sincere" in the sense that Barack personally regretted the divisive things he has said and done. And why should he? Hillary doesn't regret hers. But then Hillary wasn't the real change candidate... If Barack is going to work the magic of change, shouldn't we be annoyed when he doesn't, and shouldn't perfectly unnecessary potshots that obscure the real issues vex us more?"

And if he had always remained above the fray and refused to respond to the constant barrage of cheapshots from Clinton and McCain, then everybody would be criticizing him for not being tough enough. Let's face it. Anyone who wants to be president has issues. And nobody can get to the position where he/she can legitimately run for president without making some serious compromises. So we back the candidate we think has the best ideas or will do the most good. And we could do a lot worse than someone who's smart, thoughtful, confident, charismatic, and surrounds himself with able people.

While reading this post, I kept double checking the URL. A surprisingly petty and small-minded post for the New Republic. Surprise, surprise, a politician is cynical. I'm shocked. But it really is ludicrous for a Hillary supporter to get annoyed with Obama. His cynicism hasn't even approached the epic, narcissistic depths of the Clintons. You know, those two who represent "real" Americans, hard-working white people who don't like elitist pansies (pssst...- or black people).

I understand the analysis, but I am worried about the implicit Catch-22 bind that the Clinton supporters present.  If Obama (or his supporters) say nothing about HRC then she is being "disrespected" and "taken for granted".  If he says something nice, then he is insincere and snarky.  If he says something not nice, then he is a hater and a divider.

Is there some other course of action?  What precisely does he need to say to give her the proper respect that she and her supporters seem to crave?

I have this sneaking suspicion that HRC and her supporters are enjoying being victims far too much for it to be possible for Obama to atone.  I hope that I am wrong.

Stay classy, honest and gracious Cinque.

re Michelle: She looked exactly like Sigourney Weaver. It was almost spooky, right down to the facial gestures.

But damn, I hope her husband is our next president.

Cinque,

You've got to be joking, right? McCain made the remark that we might be in Iraq for a hundred years. He said it. It's not a rumor.

Obama made a reference to that remark. Seems like fair game.

In any event, did you get a chance to watch HRC? Yikes. If ever I needed proof that I made the right choice, that was it.

liberal,

There are different meanings of juvenile.  One of them is lacking in sophistication.  This is a juvenile remark by Cinque:

"And enough with the un-humble "I know you didn't do this for me." Barack likes that line and has said it repeatedly in his speeches, and Lord knows, it stirs the soul of his many fans. But Barack is the main reason they did it--and that's mostly why Barack is doing it."

What is Obama supposed to say, "I know you adore me and that we are going to win because I an the Son whose return you have been waiting for.  I am in in it to win it for the glory of me and if I happen to do something along the way for you, that's nice too."

Cinque is basically slamming Obama for observing appropriate norms of political behavior because he thinks he is insincere.  That is juvenile.

It was perfectly clear from what I wrote that my comment was addressed specifically to Cinque's remark.  You seem congenitally unable to distinguish commentary, however caustic, that is addressed to what someone says and not to the person.

About a half dozen posts following mine, liberal, have made it quite clear just how unsophisticated Cinque's remarks were.  For a forum such as this one, I do think that falls to the level of juvenile.  Really.  I don't think Cinque is lacking in sophistication, just so eager to take a potshot that he was willing to make himself look foolish to do it.  And he succeeded.

Next time I will try to be sure and spell things out in greater detail so that no one misunderstands.

Liberal reformer, my hunch is that you aren't black--please correct me if I'm wrong--so when you write "stop dissin' da brother" in defense of a black commentator it is...well...cringeworthy.

HRC supporters complaining about the lack of neutrality of pundits have lost touch with reality.  Hillary was no victim in this campaign, and she benefitted greatly in the early stages from the steady drumbeat of inevitability coming from these same pundits.  And if she (and her staff) weren't so arrogant as to dismiss the calendar following February 5, she would have been the one giving a victory speech last night.

Obama ran a smarter campaign, which suggests that just maybe he would be a smarter president, too.

I agree that Obama should be more subtle when he talks about McCain's position in the war.  There are two separate positions here:

1) McCain's *actual* position, which is that Iraq will be pacified and then we can build permanent bases there and use it in the Middle East the way we use Japan and Korea in Asia

2) The *strawman* McCain position, which is that we should keep fighting insurgents in Iraq for 100 years.

As many people have pointed out, there are lots of problems with number 1.  It would be nice if Obama addressed those problems, rather than continually attacking number 2.  But that's politics for ya'.  Obama is a lot of great things, but he's still a politician, and you don't survive long in politics if you continually look at your opponents in the most charitable light.

Also, why would you be upset by Obama being gracious to Hillary?  

Ugh. Could this person possibly be more catty? If Cinque is representative of a broad swath of Hillary voters (tempermentally, not demographically), Obama is in real trouble.

P.S. LOVE the impossibly high standards Obama is held to by the Clintonistas. See roid's post at the top...

P.P.S. All the carping about the media has a really unsavory "blame it on the refs" feel about it.

Hilary, in defeat, still says she's the stronger candidate. That's not the right answer in the job interview for the VP position

aeromonas writes:  "Liberal reformer, my hunch is that you aren't black--please correct me if I'm wrong--so when you write "stop dissin' da brother" in defense of a black commentator it is...well...cringeworthy."

Either that, or -- as I noted on another thread yesterday -- it's another of LibRef's perverse clues as to the fake/performative nature of his writing here on TNC.  It's all very odd.  It's as if he holds up a sign every third post or so saying "Look, I'm not real, geddit?"

The discussion about McCain's 100 yrs line is proof of the maxim that a liberal is someone so broadminded he won't take his own side in an argument.  In order to create a meme that sinks down to low-info voters, sometimes you have to distill (and perhaps distort a little) the message.  I actually don't think this is even all that distorting -- it's drawing a sharp contrast between those who want to stay indefinitely (and emphasizing what that means) and the majority of Americans who prefer withdrawal/redeployment.  

Do you think you had discussions on NRO or Free Republic about the unfairness of not recognizing the nuance of voting for something before voting against it???  Play to win dammit.

Cinque, your disappointment in Obama for his "100-years" charge (though McCain did say the words, which at the time suggested a casual support for open ended indefinite occupation, who cares how long) strikes me as (possibly) motivated by a "black [pick your minority] man/woman has to be twice as [sincere, scrupulously honest] to..." attitude.

Look, I'll be first to admit that Obama is a politician no more or less than any other. It is a little ironic that Obama places such weight on the "change" theme while following a strictly conventional campaign strategy, it's main distinction being superb execution. Why should it be beneath him?

Whether the guy is sincere in appearing high-minded is fairly open to question. In any event, real change will come slowly and incrementally, and I don't think he is a miracle-worker. However, neither is it reasonable to imagine he is a snake.

It’s easy to see how Cinque Henderson could feel fairly jaunty about being tasked to deliver “ the black

Seriously?  That might be the worst analysis I've read on the internet.  To begin, your wrong.  Obama said exactly what McCain meant.  

Here is what you said:  "the perfectly unnecessary description of McCain's Iraq position as staying in Iraq "for 100 years." Everyone knows that's not what McCain meant . . . "

Here is what Obama said:

"I won't stand here and pretend that there are many good options left in Iraq, but what's not an option is leaving our troops in that country for the next hundred years—especially at a time when our military is overstretched, our nation is isolated, and nearly every other threat to America is being ignored"

Here is what McCain said:

Q: President Bush has talked about our staying in Iraq for 50 years — (cut off by McCain)

McCAIN: Make it a hundred.

Q: Is that … (cut off)

McCAIN: We’ve been in South Korea … we’ve been in Japan for 60 years. We’ve been in South Korea 50 years or so. That would be fine with me. As long as Americans …

Q: [tries to say something]

McCAIN: As long as Americans are not being injured or harmed or wounded or killed. That’s fine with me, I hope that would be fine with you, if we maintain a presence in a very volatile part of the world where Al Queada is training and equipping and recruiting and motivating people every single day.

Obama, unlike his opponent, doesn't believe that troops should stay in Iraq in the same manner that troops are stationed in South Korea.  Get it?

Your post script is ridiculous on several levels.  Not the least of which is that you confirmed that your main beef with Obama is that you feel that he assumed the mantle of blackness by marrying a black woman.  Also, I assume that since you believe that Michelle is plainly hotter than HRC, that we'd rather have Michelle in the Whitehouse.  Oh wait!  Looks are irrelevant you say?  Right.  

Aeromonas; For chrissakes, man, have we gotten that pc out here? I am indeed not black but my fiancee is and we mix it up with all manners of speech. You are hereby sentenced to a dinner party at our house.

In running for this office Barack Obama showed leadership skills that Hillary Clinton simply did not. He ran an organization that was head and shoulders above his opponents, each of whom was better known, better funded (at first), and taken more seriously (well maybe not Gravel and Kucinich). In spite of all this, he won.

It seems to me, Cinque, that this cynicism has more to do with you than it does with Obama. And to suggest that there is such a thing as a "black case" for skepticism is at best intellectually wanting and at worst morally offensive.

If you want to be a skeptic, be one. But attributing that skepticism to your skin pigment makes you unfit to scribble on TNR's walls.

(FYI: McCain's 100 years in Iraq remark is absolutely fair game. Nobody's saying he meant 100 years of war. He is saying, however, that we might have a permanent presence in Iraq. That's at odds with how we liberals want this to play out).

By the way, have you read Dayo's response? I assume you haven't, since your posts still remain in the public domain.

If you get a chance, take a look at what he wrote.

Thank you Sirhc! You took the words right off my fingertips.

It appears the issue of obama's 'distortion' has been addressed, but for those who still are not aware (AlanSP) Obama addressed the accusation of his distortion of McCain's stance on Iraq during his interview with Chris Matthews on Hardball, and then clarified his own position. Actually, Matthews grilled him fairly heavily, anyone who cares and has not done so should check it out. All of the footage is available on youtube.

Cinque, shame on you.