Tammy - yes, dare you say -

As I said on another post, this is mind reading and says almost nothing of substance.  How does Obama "react to everything?" or "control" the humor about him?  How could he even do that?

Please provide substance instead of pompous psycholgical analysis that has nothing to back it up but your five alarm bias.

No disrespect to Tammy and the other Operating 1 TNR Thetans amongst us, but I haven't seen one William Yard post get the nod.

Surely William should get-made soon? Or some of the other valued commentators? (You know who you are.)

We should form a Commentators Council comrades and push for reform of this tool of oppression.

Yeah, Obama really went off earlier this year when Carlos Mencia dedicated an entire segment to parodying him. He needs to lighten up!

...oh, wait...

But still there's that rant about Maher and the bowling...

...oh, yeah...

What about that Letterman's Top Ten...

...ummm...

Well he shouldn't have responded like that to Maureen Do...

...errrm...

Whatever, Obama needs to lighten up and quit taking The New Yorker so seriously! EVERYBODY knows they're a Liberal Rag with a penchant for tasteless sarcasm! NBD!

Echoingmn and agreeing 100 percent with Wandreycer1: TammyA runs off a couple of criticisms that don't have any basis beyond the claimed conventional wisdom: That Obama is (1) cocky and (2) elitist. How one can get either of those two adjectives from the hapless Politico story (is there any other kind) is beyond me. What I'm looking for at Politico.com these days is a story that doesn't cite unnamed source Congressional staffers who are desperately trying to get ink and build-up press connections for 2009 and beyond by offering their own uninformed opinion about how important their equally unnamed boss is and how that boss' constituency/ego needs an immediate massage from Barack or Axelrod. If you want to call Barack cocky and elitist, please don't expect anyone smart to nod and agree when you base your story on something written on political blogging's version of Gossip Girl.

The word "elitist" has run to the top of my weasel word list for the 2008 campaign -- it's the inartful criticism that you levy at an opponent when you really don't have anything specific, just a gut feeling that you don't like him/her. Given when "elitist" entered the political lexicon this year -- during the ridiculous, spastic response by Hillary Clinton and FOX News to Obama's "San Francisco comment" (wink, wink) -- we should all take a step back before we use it to describe a candidate. It's the "flip-flopper" of this election, with as much intellectual heft as when any Republican in any race for any office calls his opponent a "liberal."

Good call Iggy Pop, you are right.  So many of Mr Y's posts are really touching, wise.  I love the rest of them too.

I'll endorse your proposal to th Commentators Council.  The Time Has Come.

GSpinks - yes, such a problem, Obama really should cool it on those 13 word statements after his wife is portrayed with unacceptably bad hair.  What a humorless wuss. He should just go back to Whole Foods, get some vitamins that might help him that OCD he has about his "image."  

Maybe if he wore a bad tie one day, he'd feel better.  

These posts should be called "The William Yard Comment of the Day."

Although I guess that for it to really work, he'd have to be dead.

Tammy never got over Clinton losing to Obama. She has payed lip service to the Obama  candidacy ever since, but she never misses an opportunity to say something negative about him. Classica case of double talk.

Idefix,

She's even doing the McCainish "My friends ..." Eerie!

Idefix, that's not really fair.  It's perfectly fine to have reservations about Obama, as Tammy clearly does (and she generally expresses them a bit better than this).  Saying, "I support Obama, but I'm not enthused," while being critical of him isn't "double talk," it's just "talk."  No reason to bash one of the thoughtful contributors here because she still has problems with Obama.  If you want to bash the actual arguments she makes here, go for it (seriously, "elitist"?)

Yes, I forgot, in order to be a proper supporter of Obama, I can never utter a single word of criticism about the guy.  I'm really intrigued by how so many of you smart people, whose opinions and writings I've learned some things from in the past, have chosen to criticize me personally instead of discussing the substantive points I raised. I suppose it's not enough that I'll vote for him.  Must I fall at his feet and praise his every move?  Sorry, you got the wrong woman.  Ideflix, you're being juvenile.  I don't even endorse Clinton as the VP.  Woody, I expected something better from you.  What a disappointment.  Neither of you know me very well, so spare me your bullshit.  

What AlanSP said, exactly.

Tammy,

I agree with Wandrey's basic point about the above post: I think you're attributing motives or qualities of character to Obama that you can't be in a position to know are true (unless you happen to know him very, very well.) But Idefix *is* being juvenile -- and totally unfair to boot.

I've appreciated your thoughtful comments on these boards, and also the fact that you've stuck around even though you were a Hillary supporter during the primary (which couldn't always have been easy in these parts.)

Oh, Tammy - my friend, it was a joke. It's almost too cliche that you snagged Comment of the Day by rapping Obama's sense of humor and then are so disappointed in my "bullshit."

But anyway, let's talk about this:

"Yes, I forgot, in order to be a proper supporter of Obama, I can never utter a single word of criticism about the guy."

Well, that's not true at all. I've been a supporter of the guy since January and certainly have criticized him when I thought it appropriate (FISA, for one). This is a straw man.

"I'm really intrigued by how so many of you smart people, whose opinions and writings I've learned some things from in the past, have chosen to criticize me personally ..."

Irony point #2 - you called Obama thin-skinned, too. Pot, kettle etc.?

"... instead of discussing the substantive points I raised."

This is where, I think, you're really off base. What substantive points are you talking about, exactly? You have criticized Obama today for not having the proper sense of humor, for thinking he's a rock star, for being an "elitist" -- those are most certainly NOT substantive points. Comparing the rate of consumption of your yuppy sister's salad and your heartland mother's salad, then drawing cultural and political conclusions, is not substantive. It's quite the opposite, really. The entire "elitist" debate, which you seem to be quite invested in, is the very antithesis of "substantive."

"I suppose it's not enough that I'll vote for him."

That's plenty, I would suppose. I would not have guessed you'd do it back in, oh, March. But it's your call.

"Must I fall at his feet and praise his every move?"

No, of course not. No one expects this. No one does this. Straw man #2.

"Ideflix, you're being juvenile."

At least a couple of his/her points were valid, though. I certainly don't think you "never got over" Clinton's loss, or that you are guilty of "double talk." But it's true that you rarely have anything positive to say about Obama, and when you do it's usually a back-handed compliment about how he holds his naive followers in sway with his oratorical skills or something similar. And that's fine! You don't have to compliment anyone about anything if you don't want to! I don't think you should be offended, though, when someone points this out.

"Woody, I expected something better from you.  What a disappointment.  Neither of you know me very well, so spare me your bullshit."

Again, see the first graph in this comment. See, John McCain always says "My friends ..." when he starts off saying something. It's a verbal tic of his. And you said "My friends ..." in your comment criticizing Obama. And since McCain uses it when he criticizes Obama, too, I thought I would make a joking comparison. Sorry if I insulted you.

WoodyB: Smart post, as usual. Funny too. But a couple of points.

You wrote: "...you rarely have anything positive to say about Obama, and when you do it's usually a back-handed compliment..."

If I remember right, she praised him toward the end of the primary for his general progressiveness on issues. (Her view about this may have changed, but that doesn't negate the past compliment.) She's also repeatedly praised his inclusive emphasis on "we," as opposed to Clinton's "I." Oh, and also his ability to inspire people (which I didn't take to be backhanded.)  Just sayin'.

Spare us dogs your "Comment of the Day" bones and give us some real meat. I.e. a first-class functional website that enables real (and real-time) discussions next to the _articles_, not just the blog-ephemera

hemlock,

Fair enough. I don't remember reading all the things you mention, but I likely exaggerated that point.

Wandreycer (and others): "this is mind reading and says almost nothing of substance"

True, but when the mindreading is directed at those you dissaprove of (Hillary Clinton) you don't seem to have a problem with it.  This is what the press does.  The idea has been planted and from now on there will be a steady stream of ridiculous anecdotal stories supposedly illustrating Obama's arrogance/lack of sense of humor/elitism.  Of course you'll see through them, but for other people who aren't emotionally attached to Obama, the anecdotes - no matter how thin - will add up and "prove" the case.  

Regarding "Comment of the Day," the editors clearly aren't looking for real substance.  They're looking for comments that fit or reflect the mold of the narrative going on in thier own minds.  

Ok Newdex - I hear you, I thought about that - about you in particular, because you've brought that up alot.  I should have noticed that dynamic more while it was happening with Hillary.  And acknowledged it.  I was blinded by anger and bias at the time.

I've said on other threads that I learned alot from that episode. What I saw as the exploitation of feminism (although I totally accept that this was my subjective expereince and not others) made me irrationally angry.  I wasn't as good a listener as I should have been.

I don't care if someone supports Obama or not, but dishonesty is something that I'll call it as I see it.  To complain about MoDo's shallow personalized gossip passing as journalism (ridiculo - a great word) and then leap right and do the same thing in is a bit much.  I stand by everything I said on this thread.  

I appreciate your principled, consistent feminist outrage at Michelle's treatment in this cartoon Tammy and saw how Obama's response was a man catching his wife's back - rather than Princess Obama being thin skinned and controlling of his image.

Or are incidents like these only mysoginy if it's Hillary and you are defending her?  Obama can't be both a princess and a person, which one is it?

PS I read up on all the Bradenburg stuff and ended up with a cold smile on my face, admiration even for Bush's jutitsu on this, he got Obama good.  Obama was set up and walked right into it.  As an old Chicago guy, I bet he even admired it.

Oh the drama of German's consrevative president and her "discomfort."  I love it.  Score one Repubicans, they took this out of Obama's hide.

There's a good editorial from a German writer on this in the NYT today.  

Thank you Wandreycer.  I think we all need to be a lot less tolerant of the press' games, whoever the victim is.  If individuals want to decide who to vote for based on things like whether or not a candidate is "too thin-skinned" or "too arrogant" or does or does not seem "comfortable in his own skin" or is "too ambitious" or whatever else, that's one thing.  But for the press to devote its attention to such "issues" is outrageous.  

For one thing, these things are entirely subjective, and members of the press have absolutely no more "expertise" in determining such things than anyone else does.  But most importantly, like every other closed off elitist clique, the press is subject to group-think.  They all want to climb the ladder.  They all want to be invited onto Hardball or Meet the Press.  If the conventional "wisdom" is that Obama is an arrogant elitist, they're going to find stories that confirm the wisdom, and they're going to interpret everything he does through the prism of that wisdom.  

As examples, I give you Al Gore, the shallow, elitist, robotic liar who doesn't know who he is and would do or say - literally - anything just to become president.  I also give you John Kerry, the flip-flopping, phony, un-American seeming elitist who would do or say - literally - anything just to become president.  And then there's Hillary Clinton, the arrogant, power-hungry, castrating bitch who would do or say - literally - anything just to become president.  Now we have Barack Obama, the arogant, cocky elitist who takes himself far too seriously and would do or say - literally - anything to become president.  Notice the pattern?  

Newdex - the guy has changed his position 180 degrees on, by my count, seven major issues in the last 45 days. The "elitist" rap is BS, sure, but not the very legitimate, entirely fact-based charge that he is slippery and has baited and switched the Democratic base on not one, not two, but more than half a dozen issues.

That's a problem. Potentially a big problem, esp for a candidate whose campaign was built on his "new politics" mantra.

Tep,

I really can't remember if you are a clinton supproter or mccain supporter (I think Hilary right?  If I"m wrong, I'm sorry).  You always seems to reserve your "flip flop" accusations for Obama.  So if in fact you are a Hilary Dem then I know you want to elect a Dem, so I found this website for you giving a list of 61 issue/positions tha McCain has "flip flop" on.  If you are a Repub, then I provide the info for your personal knowledge.  If you can, I would appreciate it if you could list some issues that Obama has actually flip flopped on aside from FISA and public financing and please leave the pseudo flip flop "refining" of Iraq :

From Steven Benen, Carpetblogger Report writing for AlterNet.org:

"McCain argues that flip-flops are an example of a political leader who can't be trusted -- so he might as well drop out of the race. "

National Security Policy

3. He opposed indefinite detention of terrorist suspects. When the Supreme Court reached the same conclusion, he called it "one of the worst decisions in the history of this country."

6. When Barack Obama talked about going after terrorists in Pakistani mountains with Predators, McCain criticized him for it. He's since come to the opposite conclusion.

Military Policy

16. McCain said before the war in Iraq, "We will win this conflict. We will win it easily." Four years later, McCain said he knew all along that the war in Iraq war was "probably going to be long and hard and tough."

18. McCain was against expanding the GI Bill before he was for it.

Domestic Policy

19. McCain defended "privatizing" Social Security. Now he says he's against privatization (though he actually still supports it.)

27. McCain opposed a holiday to honor Martin Luther King Jr. before he supported it. (My Personal favorite)

30. In 2005, McCain endorsed intelligent design creationism, a year later he said the opposite, and a few months after that, he was both for and against creationism at the same time.

Economic Policy

36. McCain pledged in February 2008 that he would not, under any circumstances, raise taxes. Specifically, McCain was asked if he is a "'read my lips' candidate, no new taxes, no matter what?" referring to George H.W. Bush's 1988 pledge. "No new taxes," McCain responded. Two weeks later, McCain said, "I'm not making a 'read my lips' statement, in that I will not raise taxes."

Energy Policy

39. McCain supported the moratorium on coastal drilling; now he's against it.

Immigration Policy

45. On immigration policy in general, McCain announced in February 2008 that he would vote against his own bill.

46. In April, McCain promised voters that he would secure the borders "before proceeding to other reform measures." Two months later, he abandoned his public pledge, pretended that he'd never made the promise in the first place, and vowed that a comprehensive immigration reform policy has always been, and would always be, his "top priority."

Politics and Associations

58. In 2000, McCain accused Texas businessmen Sam and Charles Wyly of being corrupt, spending "dirty money" to help finance Bush's presidential campaign. McCain not only filed a complaint against the Wylys for allegedly violating campaign finance law, he also lashed out at them publicly. In April, McCain reached out to the Wylys for support."

Just to name a few.  For the complete list: www.alternet.org/.../90956

As for the "changed his position 180 degrees on, by my count, seven major issues in the last 45 days." wasn't it just about 45 days ago that the primary season ended for Obama.  After the last primary, Obama had what about 3 months before the convention to get out of primary mode and turn to general election mode.  Let's be honest here, due to the long Democratic primary (which I concede did help make Obama a stronger candidate), Obama and the DNC had to "catch up" to general election campaign level in a shorter period of time than McCain had.  If the primary had ended sooner rather than later, then Obama would have had more time to "move to the center" for the general.

Seven? Really, tep?  So far I count campaign finance and FISA.  Tammy suggests school vouchers, which I hadn't heard about, but let's assume she's right.  That's 3.

I assume you're counting Iraq.  He laid out his Iraq position in his New York Times op-ed (and the speech he gave, but , and it looks remarkably similar to what he said during the primaries.  Let me reiterate that: what he *said*, not what people chose to hear.  It's not changing positions to say the same thing you were saying before. Show me what he said during the primaries that contradicts what he wrote this week.

What's on the  rest of your list?

I really don't think Obama is thin-skinned at all. Don't forget this - themoderatevoice.com/.../obama-says-rush-limbaugh-aired-magic-negro-parody-didnt-bother-him

Tep, I disagree with your characterization of Obama's positions.  I think the changes have been mainly in emphasis and presentation.  But the point is that there are different ways to interpret it.  The press should devote its energy to telling us what he says, explaining the details and providing policy context.  Beyond that, the public can decide for itself whether or not different statements constitute small, acceptable changes or large unacceptable ones.  

Personally, I don't dispute that Obama has tailored his message at various times for political advantage and will continue to do so.  Duh.  The problem is that the idea of the Flip Flopping Democrat is so engrained in the media mind that the press is always hungry for it - it pounces on any possible example of it, no matter how minor, and whips it up into a major issue.  

I realize there are lots of people (like you) who would absolutely conclude, based entirely on his statements and nothing else, that Obama is a flip flopper.  But would you be willing to bet your life that that number is significantly higher than the number of people who would conclude the same thing about John McCain?  So why is the press filled with discussions of the impact of Obama's image as a "flip flopper," while McCain's image as a "straight talker" continues to be one of his best assets?  

"Tep,

I really can't remember if you are a clinton supproter or mccain supporter (I think Hilary right?  If I"m wrong, I'm sorry)."

None of the above, actually.  During the primaries, he often had to correct people who assumed that he was a Hillary supporter because he was critical of Obama, but he was critical of Clinton as well (and pretty much everyone else).  I know of 3 politicians that, so far as I can tell,  have the tepluhkin2you seal of approval: Joe Biden, Bobby Jindal, and Ken Salazar.  Maybe Romney as well, but I'm less sure about that one.

Wandrey, from what I can tell, the German press reaction to the Brandenburg thing is that Bush forced Merkel to say what she said. It's very pro-Obama, and anti-Bush, and Merkel had to come out and say not true, which then nobody believed. WHich makes her look like a puppet and a liar.

WHerever he gives his speech, though, I think it will be very well-attended, and Merkel will have to deal with the fact that she dissed what is likely the next U.S. president, and that lots of Germans seem to like him.

I voted for Obama, reluctantly. I'm a card-carrying member of Robert Conquest's UFAB [United Front Against Bullshit].

1. FISA-- from filibuster to outright _support_. Breathtaking.

2. Iraq timetable

3. Campaign finance

4. Gun control. IIUC for the first time in his entire career he's supporting 2nd Amendment rights.

5. Abortion. Again, for the first time in his political career he's supporting limitations on abortion rights.

6. Church and state. Again, for the first time, he's now in favor of routing public money through churches to deliver services to the poor.

7. Merit pay for teachers -- per his NEA speech, he now opposes it, after having talked up his support for it during the primaries.

Supposedly there are other post-primary reversals as well-- s.t. about soc security taxes on income >$200k, about which he apparently opposed the Hillary position and now is advocating that same position-- but I don't know enough about his stand on this particular issue.

Anyway, I stopped counting at seven. That's enough for me, given that they occurred within about a *** six-week period ***.

Yeah well, guess Obama should have offered to visit Bitburg instead.  

Or he should have done what McCain did in his recent visit to Canada: make a fundraising speech in front of a bunch of rich magnates because, you know, that would not be electioneering abroad.

lamh31  - fiar points, and as I said I really can't vote for McCain, but Obama has gone 180 on position after position DURING THE PAST MONTH AND A HALF. From someone who's supposedly as smart and smooth and persuasive as Obama, this is really mystifying. I mean, he could be a _bit_ less brazen about it, couldn't he?

Then again, maybe he's not all that smooth, persuasive, brilliant etc. Maybe he's ... nothing special.

Tep,

With FISA and campaign finance, "180" is a fair description of Obama's shift. But abortion? The only thing I've heard him say on this post-primary is that mental distress (later qualified to mean "feeling blue") should not be a justification for late term abortion. I consider myself strongly pro-choice. But the extreme dualism with which some pro-choicers approach this issue really annoys me. Any nuance, even the slightest shift toward acknowledging that the moral qualms of pro-lifers aren't completely crazy, is painted by some as a shocking betrayal of women's core interests. This is not productive. Or reasonable. (There are similarly simplistic and extreme views on the other side too, of course.) We have to be able to recognize the core importance of women's autonomy over their bodies while also acknowledging that a late-term fetus is similar enough to a born infant to warrant moral -- and perhaps even *some* legal -- consideration on our part. Obama's statement on abortion is at most a 10-15 degree shift. In other words, it's him filling in the shades of grey of his position.

From tep's list.

"4. Gun control. IIUC for the first time in his entire career he's supporting 2nd Amendment rights."

See www.breitbart.com/article.php

Last I checked, February 15 was more than 6 weeks ago.  In fact, it was during the Democratic primary process when he supposedly hoodwinked all us gullible liberals.

"5. Abortion. Again, for the first time in his political career he's supporting limitations on abortion rights."

Could you point to a time where he said he opposes any and all restrictions on abortion rights?

"6. Church and state. Again, for the first time, he's now in favor of routing public money through churches to deliver services to the poor."

This is a good time to point out what a "180" is.  It's been a while since I took geometry, but my understanding is that 180 degrees constitutes a *reversal* in direction.  If Obama started advocating overturning Roe, that would be a 180.  If he started saying that going to war with Iraq was a good decision, that would likewise constitute a 180.  His campaign finance move was this type of bona fide reversal (though as I said above, I think he ended up on the right side of the issue for the wrong reasons).    Saying that his support of faith-based initiatives is a reversal implies that he was previously opposed.  Evidence for this?

Hemlock continues her habit of saying what I was going to say while I was writing my post, thus making me look like I have no original thoughts.

Curses!

For some very useful hints on how to make fun of Obama, go to JibJab.com and watch the "Campaigning" song video.  They don't seem to have any problem skewering him, along with everyone else.

As to the Brandenburg.  To the Germans, apparently, it's no big deal to give a speech there.  Every two-bit politicians of theirs does it.

But, to Americans, it has an historical context associated with two memorable and historic speeches by two presidents when they were president.

I cannot think of another American candidate who has attempted to steal the legendary president ruboff by speaking there.  I cannot think of any Amerrican  politician who was president giving a speech there.

To the American sensibility-- at least to any American who still has sensibilities-- it is presumptuous and phony in the extreme for Obama to give a Brandenburg speech so prematurely.

Let him come to somewhere else.  And come back to the Brandenburg if and when he earns the prez cred.

AlanSP,

Fair enough,  that not every one of Obama's artful dodges is a 180. He's got some 120's in there, a few 90's, and maybe the abortion thing is a 45-degree shift.

But the point is that it's one hell of a long list, compiled in a short time.

Chan - the Brandenburg episode is yet another example of the ridiculousness of the Obama phenom. The guy is smooth, comfortable in his skin, but it's his estimation of his own greatness that really irritates. If he had done one of the following-- either a) written something truly profound, or b) created a movement of any size or consequence,  or c) built a business of any consequence, or d) led a large organization in an executive capacity, or e) earned a reputation as a solid legislative leader with some _major_ legislative victories on national issues to his credit -- then I could see the need for maybe one book about himself. But two?

Also, is it true that he's taken to affixing a quasi-presidential seal, of his own devising, to his podium?

This is getting really obnoxious. It's clear what this guy is thinking with his Brandenburg and Gran Sigullum Obamam stunts.

But what are you people thinking? Don't you find this guy kind of ridiculous?

Tep- I'm sure this is far too late for this discussion, but you wrote "a) written something truly profound, or b) created a movement of any size or consequence"

Well, the first book *was* truly profound, a beautiful and elagic book about race and identity and memory.  But according to your logic, he shouldn't have written that book until after he had written it.  And I think buliding and leading an air-tight, hyper-modern campaign that is both tightly controlled at the top and loose and Net 2.0-y at the bottom is an impresseive movement in size, and consequentially led him to the Dem nomination.  Again, not that this qualifies him to be President...

As for the second book...teppy...a policy book like that is standard for any POTUS candidate.  And the man can write.   If he can write, why should he have to wait?

teplukhin,

You don't like Obama. I get it. His self-assurance (i.e. arrogance) turns you off, as does his polish (i.e. slickness.) You distrust him because of his two big policy reversals. All quite reasonable. So why not leave it at that? When you suggest that his other policy refinements are reasons to distrust him (without actually paying attention to the complexities or merits of the issues), or when you say that his two books are just evidence of colossal narcissism, as is his talent for political "theater" (which all campaigns practice), then your antipathy starts to look like a kind of shtick.

Hemlock - I was inclined to want to trust and like him, but the evidence of his slipperiness and narcissism is getting to be too large to ignore.

Really, now: what's up with the seal? Did he devise this? Michelle's idea? And Brandenburg? Even the Bush-hating Germans know this is _way_ over the top. Bush's father refused to speak there after the Wall came down. What the f--- is this man thinking when he asserts a right to speak there BEFORE he's even reached the White House?

C'mon, be honest. The self-regard, the smarminess, the bait and switch reversals-- it's getting out of control, don't you think?

The seal was awful. Apparently it was the "brainchild" of someone on the event-staging team and got nixed by those at the top of the campaign right away. It seems unlikely Obama would've had a direct hand in planning that kind of event-presentation detail. (Or so the folks on CNN seemed to think.) I don't follow the German media, but from what I've read about it in US sources, Germans didn't react the way you describe. Apparently lots of speakers use the gate as a backdrop, for all kinds of speeches. The resonance it has among Americans is what created the problem -- but the campaign has backed off now.  

Look, I completely agree that he seems to have a higher-than-average level of self-esteem. Actually, a MUCH higher than average level. But this is probably a prerequisite personality trait if you're going to put yourself through the grueling process of a presidential campaign with any hope of success. He just doesn't do as good a job of disguising it as he could. No doubt he enjoys the crowds he draws. But getting a bit of a narcissistic rush out of the performance aspect of campaigning doesn't strike me as a fatal flaw -- as long as it doesn't interfere with his judgment on issues. I'm sure if McCain were drawing those crowds, he'd be getting a kick out of it too. (Who wouldn't?)