My my my. The man was all over the news last month, at the same time that McCain and his campaign made screwup after screwup, and he's _slipping_ in the polls? And you guys are blaming this on a silly little TV ad that makes fun of Obama's celebrity status? Are you kidding?

Outside the media bubble, the talk among people across the spectrum is that Obama underwhelms.

Whether it's curious Europeans hearing his banal, vapid speech (imagine having to translate that mush into German), ordinary Americans listening to him fumble and fudge his way along, Israelis wondering what he was thinking in his Jerusalem remarks, the clear and growing perception is that this man is running before he's ready.

You won't (yet) hear them publicly admit this, but lots of Americans who want Obama to succeed are privately aghast at the prospect of a Congress dominated by Pelosi + an Obama White House. McCain is much stronger than he looks now, and Obama's much weaker. The man's natural cockiness, his inexperience and his followers' obtuseness aren't helping his cause.  

My only comfort in this is my pleasure in seeing Tep so sure in the middle of his knee-jerkism, since he's almost always wrong -  Guiliani is a seriously competitive candidate, immigration is the death of Democrats, etc.  Keep in up Tep, such arrogance in accordance with your history comforts me.

tep, you're making some pretty sweeping statements. I'm inclined to agree with you that for some time now Obama's supposed voter appeal has been way overestimated, that he actually, not apparently, suffers from several substantive deficits as a candidate and a potential Prez. But your analysis, lacking any reference to verifiable data sources, is a itself a tad chutzpah-ish.

Just an observation.

Way to go, Wandreycer1. Couldn't have put it better.

His followers' obtuseness, Tep? You've got to be kidding. Senator Can't-Keep-His-Facts-Straight McCain, who hasn't laid out a coherent or detailed platform, is perceived as the "safe" choice by voters who shy away from Obama. Why? Because he's old and therefore supposedly "experienced" and because he's got a familiar name and true-blue background that voters identify with (never mind his mega-wealth.) And you think *Obama's* followers are obtuse?

Most of us rooting for Obama here see his weaknesses, but on balance we admire him. You've made it clear for a while now that you think his weaknesses outweigh his strengths. That's fine. Perfectly reasonable. But, honestly, your comments above make it sound like you've gone off the deep end.

Do you really have a lock on what the gazillions of people "outside the media bubble," including people right "across the spectrum," are saying?

"Obama faces a decision about whether to try and get out in front of the news cycle and create some drama of his own -- perhaps with a VP selection or some aggressive lines of attack against John McCain -- or to let the cycle play out organically, hoping that McCain's negative advertising will begin to backfire on him."

Please let it be the latter. Please, please, please. No rope-a-dope strategy this year, by God.

Oh, and Wandrey's post neatly reminded me that it was a smart idea to stop reading Tep's comments. Blustering confidence in one's superior grasp of the Truth, unpalatable as it is already is of itself, is fatal in combination with a poor track record of actually predicting outcomes and developments.

It's positively thrilling how seriously some people on this blog take themselves. Sometimes the hubris around here is so thick you can cut it with a knife. Add up every comment from every commenter (myself included) in a week's time, throw in another $2.00 or so and you can get yourself a decent jug of Gatorade at 7-11, just in case you've worked up a thirst after all that loose spittle.

Meanwhile, the headline to this post reminded me that maybe Joe Lieberman is McCain's Rally Monkey. If I'm McCain I'll have a statue of Joe made for just inside the White House's front door, like Ganesha--a human body with an elephant's head. President McCain can rub its belly every day for good luck.

Now that the election's over and McCain has won, can we get back to posts about stuff other than politics?

La roule tourne.

I'm no friend of hubris, in fact that's been my main enemy on these boards these ast few months.

fwiw the GOPers I've talked to have nice things to say about Obama and are adamant about not "making it personal", as one of them puts it-- keep in mind that these are California Republicans who work in overwhelmingly liberal Dem milieux in the Bay Area and LA/Hollywood. But the rap on Obama here is pretty much the same one I hear from European friends: the man is like the hotshot super-salesman who's not yet ready for a C-level exec position. In the corporate world, you'd give this guy a small P&L to run for a few years-- John Reed of Citibank used to call it a sandbox; they sent their top young hotshots to small emerging markets and put them to work as Country Managers-- and let him make some mistakes, earn some battle scars, get some toughening.

That's what Obama needs. He'll be a fine candidate in 2012 (don't be surprised if McCain steps down after one term).

I'll say what I would say if Obama were pulling ahead.  It's still about 90 days to go.  Any damn thing can happen.  Although I think international problems help McCain, domestic economic problems help Obama, energy problems help McCain.  Unless Obama sidles over completely to McCain's policies, and he just might.

On energy, it's clear that the Democratic Party is hoping wishing praying for higher oil and gasoline prices.  The higher the better.  The better to make alternative "clean" energy competitive.

But if Obama stands up and says solar, wind, and vegetable oil, and no more drilling, I don't know how that's going to wash with common sense voters.

I think it's time McCain segues quickly out of the jokes about celebrity and The One and starts attacking Obama (with wit and good humor) on the issues.  

There are a lot of voters sophisticated enough to worry about a Dem president with a filbuster proof Senate and an overwhelmingly Dem House.

Meanwhile, the Dewey analog occurred to me a few weeks ago.  I see that idea is emerging here and there in the MSM and online.

I am glad McCain is ahead, however, polls at this point are meaningless no matter who is ahead.

Better to wait till after the World Series before one starts making predictions.

teplukhin2you  said

"But the rap on Obama here is pretty much the same one I hear from European friends: the man is like the hotshot super-salesman who's not yet ready for a C-level exec position."

Why would you  give this guy a small P&L to run for a few years?

Can you point to any outstanding achievement  on resume of this 47 year old hotshot super-salesman?

Why would any company promote  such mediocre worker?

Let's not be naive here. There just happen to be a lot of myopic-minded isolationist Americans who view other countries with contempt; who view a politician making rounds of other countries as a traitor. I'm a Democrat, but I knew Obama's brief world tour would be viewed negatively by these Americans here at home. (Of course, Obama rejecting town-hall debates while speaking in other countries is a big fat mistake on his part.) Hell, he might as well as said "global test" for all the good his tour did here at home.

"Can you point to any outstanding achievement  on resume of this 47 year old hotshot super-salesman?"

You mean aside from being the first politician in three decades from either party to beat Bill and Hillary Clinton, despite facing significant institutional disadvantages?

FWright,

I mean aside from being able to get elected to various political positions.

He is very good at this.

I stand by my $20, tep.

What of that poll showing Obama dominating the other guy in the Joe Sixpack demographic with something like 46%-36%?

jacob,

"But the rap on Obama here is pretty much the same one I hear from European friends: the man is like the hotshot super-salesman who's not yet ready for a C-level exec position." Why would you  give this guy a small P&L to run for a few years?

Because you want to take _intelligent_ risks, not avoid risks altogether. Some organizations send their hotshots to an Executive MBA program to screw around slinging strategy buzzwords and learngin a thing or two about financial statements. The wiser ones put them in charge of business units that are large enough to present real and difficult challenges but not large enough to allow a screwup to bring down the firm. That's a pretty good description of the US Senate. It's a 6 year term, so you can really master some difficult issues, take some risks, show some leadership on an issue, all without having to worry about next year's election cycle. If you want to earn a reputation as someone who can get things done across the partisan divide, it's an ideal place to hone your legislative and persuasive skills.

Obama has real potential. He's clever. But he's never done any of the above on a stage bigger than Springfield IL. He's surrounded by people who tell him he's a statesman (even though he's never led an organization of any consequence) as well as a leading force in reforming US politics (even though he's never led any movement to win passage of national legislation of any consequence) and a world leader (even though he's never done more on the world stage than give a speech or two that left the listeners scratching their heads in wonderment at all the fuss).

Bringing him to the WH before he's ready runs the risk of ruining his talent and causing a great deal of damage in the meantime. It's like the David Clyde story, that 17 year-old 100mph fireballing Texan kid who IIRC was brought up to the majors and prpmptly bombed, ruining his arm and his baseball career in the process.

Re the salesman analogy, Obama is to national politics what a certain silicon valley saleswoman named Carleton Fiorina was to Hewlett Packard. Shoulda left her managing the global accounts. Not CEO material.

"...whether to try and get out in front of the news cycle..."

Should be: "...whether to try to get out in front of the news cycle..."

Not a biggie, but you guys are writers, so I hope you don't mind me pointing out an error.

I'm sure McCain is stronger than he seems -- he can't possibly be as mean, poorly informed, and incoherent as he appears.  I am reminded of Bob Dole - except that Dole was sharper.  

I'm not much impressed by the poll numbers - it's a wee bit early, I think.  

My guess right now though is that Obama will do much better than his poll numbers imply -- that many people will vote for the young, smart, if somewhat less-well-known guy rather than cast their ballot for an ageing, mumbling, confused and clueless old guy.

Obama looks like the winner in November.  IHAYP, Tep!

"Outside the media bubble, the talk among people across the spectrum is that Obama underwhelms."

I guess you've been out there sampling public opinion, huh, tep?  Got your finger on the pulse of the nation?  

"...the clear and growing perception is that this man is running before he's ready."

Of course, of course...because it is TEPLUKHIN2YOU'S clear perception that Obama's too green and it's all but inevitable that sooner or later the world will catch up with tep.  

I hate to say it, tep, but when you spout this nonsense about what "people" are saying and thinking, you sound like no one so much as pccostello.

What is happening in PA and OH? Obama's slipping but still had a big lead last time I looked. If McCain catches him there, it will be tough for him to win. If McCain were smart, he would insist on town hall debates rather than staged TV affairs in Sept. and Nov. He would be justified to insist on this format given that Obama has refused to live up to his promise of holding these joint sessions before the conventions.

All the pro-Obama worrywarts and the Democratic naysayers such as tep look at these recent polling data and say, "Obama should be KILLING McCain right now!  Why isn't he?  Something must be wrong."  The worrywarts conclude that something's wrong with Obama's campaign strategy while tep concludes that something's wrong with Obama.  Either way, though, they're forming conclusions based on a false premise.  

The false premise is that this election can be anything other than very close.  It can't.  Certainly not now before all the legions of undecided voters' opinions have had a chance to gel.  For the past 4 or 5 election cycles, the presidential electorate has been split remarkably evenly along party lines, and there isn't much reason to think that that should change now.   Sure, one might suppose that Bush's microscopic approval rating might translate into a big D-ward shift, but when you give it a little more thought, why should it?  Past Bush voters disapprove of GWB because he's obviously a jerk-off, not because they've suddenly seen the light and come to reject the whole Republican pose.  Party preference is the key to understanding recent poll results, and I submit that whether the Democratic candidate were Hillary Clinton, or John Edwards, or teplukhin's beloved Joe Biden, we'd be seeing similarly close poll results about now--especially in the national trackers.

But just because party pref is the key to understanding these polls, it doesn't mean that it has a damn thing to do with the outcome of the election.  To my mind, the real keys are the enthusiasm gap, Obama's prodigious ground-game, and his ability to bring in first time voters, all of which are tough to factor into poll design, especially three months out from the election.

Can Obama lose?  Sure.  Like I say, this is going to be a CLOSE election no matter how you slice it.  I still say he's doing about as well at this point as I'd expect any Dem to be doing.  And honestly, I like his game.  He isn't trying to rush it, to break to the basket for a dunk.  He's taking his time, setting up his offense, passing the ball around the perimeter.  It's the Princeton game.  I think it's going to work.

Indeed, tep and pccostello have undergone a Vulcan mind-meld.  Tep, the one thing in this campaign that I am drop-dead certain of is that your particular analysis of what is going on is absolutely wrong, in general and in every single detail.  You have been consistently wrong about, well, everything thus far and the fact that you are motivated merely by animus has become patent to everyone.  Too bad.  You used to be a contender.

Obama is ceding ground for two reasons:  First, smear campaigns work and must be fought aggressively.  Bush I did it to Dukakis.  Bush did it to McCain.  Bush did it to Gore.  Bush did it to Kerry.  Now McCain, having learned his lesson, is doing it to Obama.  The idea that Obama can somehow rise above it or simply tut-tut his way out of it is, in this day and age, incredibly amateurish.  Even when McCain puts out Swift-boaty nonsense about why Obama cancelled his troop visit, even as the cognoscenti, such as those here, cry foul and exclaim how McCain has forfeited his mantle as a "straight-talker," the stuff starts to stick.  It's oobleck.  And the more that rains down, the stickier it gets.  If Obama doesn't soon come out swinging and framing McCain in negative terms -- for which there is ample grist without having to move so much as a comma on the truth -- he is putting his election at risk despite the enormous advantages he enjoys.

The second reason is that Obama's campaign has itself been focusing attention on foreign affairs when it should be focusing everyone's attention on the economy.  "It's the economy, stupid!"  Doesn't anyone recall that Bill Clinton, a draft-dodger, defeated a decorated war-hero who had just won a popular war against Iraq?  How do you think he did that?

Dear Gang:

Make up your mind. Did McCain's Celebrity ad seek to "emasculate" Obama, or blow him up into an insatiable-negro-stud-bogeyman a la Bob Herbert?

McCain doesn't have to run ads to emasculte Obama. All he has to do is stand next to him for Obama to be emasculated. That's one of the main reasons why Obama's terrified to share a stage with him.

If a 72-year-old, two-time cancer survivor bald cripple can emasculate you, you might be a eunuch.

I think the reason that Obama has "slipped" is not so much that people have become less inclined to like him or see him as less than substantial as Tep has posited nor is it because it's McCain's inane campaign ads but that lull reflects more of the natural calm that occurs after some event that people have blovated about for some time. It's the downtime before the next big rush to the national election. But you can call it "burn-out" and I would expect this but I consider that feeling to last until the middle to the end of August.

But my other fascination is when people may assume that 'common sense' votes wouldn't vote for something as forward thinking as investing in renewables for the long term good of the country, or voting for a GOP candidate because he's perceived to have experience, or voting for the O because he's youthful and inspirational. Common sense by and large doesn't enter into the equation when people vote for a president. If that were the case, common sense would have told people to vote for Gore instead of punishing him for Clinton's misdeeds. Common sense would incline folks to vote for policies that actually benefit the working classes instead of supporting bad GOP tax policies. Common sense would have had voters calling their legislators to support raising CAFE standards 6 years ago instead of falling for pro-auto / pro-oil commercials to the contrary.

Common sense, by and large, has nothing to do with this election as much as all the folks on this site would like to believe it does, including myself. Even amongst my friends, the majority that are university educated, read the news, are professionals and non-professionals alike, and yet they aren't as informed about the nuances of the issues that the nation faces and approach the issues as much from an emotional viewpoint as they do rationally.

The economy sliding into a recession, a tightening job market, stagnating wages, inflation, a poorly managed war hemorrhaging vasts amount of money not to mention the blood and tears of Americans and Iraqis, the impacts of climate change, rising gas and food prices, a slumping housing market, and on and on. So the vast majority of people who will vote in this election will do so from an emotional standpoint and less so from common sense.

What I would like to think, naively or not, is that folks will see that Obama's policy positions are more closely aligned to more common sense solutions to the domestic and foreign policy issues that face us than McCain's 'non-position' positions and continuation of Bush policies. That they get past any emotional reticence and let a little common sense color their emotions so that the country can at least move beyond the last 8 years of shit and collectively pull ourselves up out of the miasma that we find ourselves in.

However, I think from talking to friends, coworkers, and family that many of these issues have become more important to them and they're thinking about the issues beyond the current state of affairs. They're thinking and talking about the issues in a more informed manner than they would have so maybe that's a good sign. Whether or not others are doing so is up to debate. The rational being does not hold dominate suasion over the emotional animal during times like this as much as we'd wish it to be.

Jacobt says:

"Why would you  give this guy a small P&L to run for a few years? Can you point to any outstanding achievement  on resume of this 47 year old hotshot super-salesman?"

How about the fact that this guy has run a giant corporation called Obama, Inc and done so pretty flawlessly? Compared to McCain and Hillary, both of whom crashed and burned their campaigns, leaving tons of debt and drama in their wake, Obama has been a sensational manager who's run his operation smoothly and with a PROFIT.

I am starting to think America deserves McCain. Bush has been a disaster for America but great for my bottom line, what with the dollar falling through the floor and increased housing costs in Shanghai he has done quite well for me. 4 more years of Republican boobery will be great. Even moving to Mexico I have seen nearly a 10% raise in the value of the peso, hence in my savings. It sure helps when I convert the money into dollars.

Obviously the American people are too effing stupid to do the sensible thing, and if McCain is elected on a platform of not being Obama then I won't care. On Jan. 20 when McCain gives a completely empty speech I will spend that time at playa Congrejo. Just call me Nero jr.

singlespeed, one can only hope your last graf is right. I can hardly stand to watch the news anymore since Republican lies are presented with equal credence to Democrat truths. The notion that many people are blaming Democrats for high energy prices is beyond me at this point. Bush and Cheney and their cronies are ecstatic with high gas prices and oil company profits, and why wouldn't they be?

Give it up everybody, the smug superiority of the Teps of America, coupled with the legions on Know-nothing Jacobs will power McCain to victory. The Teps will run around saying "see, see, I told you so." and the Jacobs will go back to cutting the Teps yards, secure that he is still better off (in his feeble brain's way of viewing the world) than a black man.

From TNR, five years ago:

Moneyball: The Art of Winning an Unfair Game by Michael Lewis

Who's on First

A Review by Cass R. Sunstein & Richard Thaler

==

Michael Lewis's new book is a sensation. It treats a topic that would seem to interest only sports fans: how Billy Beane, the charismatic general manager of the Oakland Athletics, turned his baseball team around using, of all things, statistics.

Why do professional baseball executives, many of whom have spent their lives in the game, make so many colossal mistakes? They are paid well, and they are specialists. They have every incentive to evaluate talent correctly. So why do they blunder? In an intriguing passage, Lewis offers three clues. First, those who played the game seem to overgeneralize from personal experience: "People always thought their own experience was typical when it wasn't." Second, the professionals were unduly affected by how a player had performed most recently, even though recent performance is not always a good guide. Third, people were biased by what they saw, or thought they saw, with their own eyes. This is a real problem, because the human mind plays tricks, and because there is "a lot you couldn't see when you watched a baseball game." [1]

==

OK! 1.) "overgeneralize from personal experience" 2.) "professionals were unduly affected by how a player had performed most recently, even though recent performance is not always a good guide" 3.) "people were biased by what they saw, or thought they saw, with their own eyes."

Oops, that was about baseball...the pro's in this game never blunder when evaluating talent.

[1] TNR Online 8-28-03

If the Democrats lose it will be because they chose the worst candidate. Obama barely won among Democrats with overwhelming media support. Now that he is facing a larger audience, he can't win merely by calling his opponent a racist, as he did so successfully in the primary races.

r-ennis, and if Hillary had won she would have barely won among Democrats as well. And what overwhelming are you talking about? People called CNN the Clinton News Network, and Fox talked about nothing but Ayers and Wright for months. You just can't make things up. You show me the statistics to back up your claim...oh wait, you can't because there aren't any. Hillary lost but her supporters can't get over it and are willing to throw the country down the toilet out of revenge.

@r-ennis: "he can't win merely by calling his opponent a racist, as he did so successfully in the primary races."

Out of curiosity, can you point to one instance where Obama called his opponent racist, successfully or not, in the primaries?  Can you point to one instance where Obama has called his opponent in the GE racist?

To note the potential cynical use of race - or other attributes - in a campaign is not to call your opponent racist.  To say that Lee Atwater and Karl Rove tapped into the darkest reaches of the American psyche to mobilise certain segments of the US population and to win, is not to suggest that Bush père et fils are racist, only that they were, and are, cynical.  And to warn against cycnism is not only not playing the Race Card, but is in the best traditions of a clean campaign: "Don't pay attention to characterisations, pay attention to the issues"; "they will try to portray me as something different than I am, don't be fooled"; etc.

But of course, you too are playing the cynics' game by throwing out this nonsensical accusation.

Obama now up by four in today's Gallup, BTW.

Aeromonas has it.  The 1960 election was a kinfe-edge thing and it's always been haunted by the not-quite-disproved accusation that Daley somehow massaged the Illiniois vote to give JFK the state.  Nixon had "experience" and maturity, Kennedy had relative youth and style.  Not unlike Obama, Kennedy articulated a kind of generation shift in American politics, but it was "a damned close-run thing."

One big difference, however, is that the U.S. was in an upbeat mood in that year and went with the candidate who personified that kind of optimism.  Nevertheless, it's often forgotten that JFK's speeches were sometimes somber, especially on the Cold War, and reveal a kind of existentialist pessimism, or at least a sense that the "long twilight struggle" was a serious business with not much room for jingoistic flag-waving.  People seemed to grasp that at the time, is my impression.  And today, if Obama can articulate that idea of a smarter, indeed (to use John Kerry's unfairly misrepresented) "more sensitive" war on terrorism, he'll have takers.

As so many have said already, Democrats have to stop ceding the national security debate to the Repugs.  They -- BHO and others -- have to make it clear that the national security has been weakened over the past few years, not strengthened, and that armor doesn't substitute for brain power.  An overstretched military, two expensive wars without a clear sense of what constitutes victory or even a reasonable endgame, global diplomatic and strategic incoherence, dissing allies and being outplayed by opponents, an obsession with finessing torture, and a worldview that most eleven-year-olds would find a little simplistic -- all this needs fixing, and Obama needs to show clearly that he's the guy to do it.  McCain has no ideas and no strategic vision.  That is what the message should be.

I agree that this was always giong to be a tight race. So why don't all you predictors out there mention how Hillary on the ticket brings Obama 8 points nationally. Also she brings her supporters from all the right electoral states... Ohio, Michigan and Florida. Remember Obama did not support  counting the actual primary votes in the  last  2 states. When people make the effort to vote and hear a candidate reject their decisions as Democrats, they do not forget. Hillary fought for their right to be counted. She can only help in those key states. He must win 2 of those 3 or he's done in presidential politics.

BHLnyc  said

"How about the fact that this guy has run a giant corporation called Obama, Inc and done so pretty flawlessly?"

I've already conceded. Obama is very good for Obama, Inc . He  even wrote a bestseller about Obama.

My question is in addition to outstanding results  in advancing his career , can you point to any outstanding achievement in any job that he held?

I don't know if it's going to make any sense to you, jacob, but writing is A JOB too -- quite a difficult one, at that -- and Obama by a number of accounts (not to mention sales figures) seems to have pulled off quite a marked achievement in that area.  Especially as he wrote both his books himself, which isn't always the case for politicians.

One of the reasons, incidentally, that I favored Jim Webb for Obama's running mate is that it would be a great symbol to have successfully published authors as both President and VP.

Jacobt1: "My question is in addition to outstanding results  in advancing his career , can you point to any outstanding achievement in any job that he held?"

Um... wouldn't an outstanding achievement in a job he held also by definition be an outstanding result in "advancing his career"? Nice to see that your tautological standard for judging Obama dooms him in advance to be a self-aggrandizing narcissist. Get a brain.

All right, jacobt, I'll bite - part of his job as a Senator is making speeches, and he's done a lot of that.  And when his job was "student" he apparently got an "A" on some big paper he had to write.

It's really funny, guys.  By your standards, Bush is a genius. He was a governor and he is two term president.

But still , he was a community organizer, state senator, senator. Everywhere he was at best mediocre.

Obama has been a writer, a law professor, a legislator, a community organizer and a United States Senator. His success at each of these has lead him to where he is today as presumptive nominee of the Democratic party for the presidency. Whether you choose to accept it or not, this triumph -- which was unthinkable a year ago -- speaks volumes about his management skills, his leadership abilities and his vision.

If you need more, have a look at this piece by Marc Ambinder from July:

marcambinder.theatlantic.com/.../management_secrets_of_barack_o_1.php

ironyroad wrote: "...writing is A JOB, too--quite a difficult one, at that." Thank you. As someone who makes his living manipulating words and punctuation, I can attest that it is a hard and often thankless row to hoe correctly, but an essential one.

As for Obama, I'll go farther: he is not merely an author, but also a rhetorician. He is steeped in the ways and means of using intelligent discourse (spoken or written) to achieve strategic objectives.

Being as America is, like, stupid these days, and seemingly proud of it, such a skill is viewed with suspicion by many--something without value, something "elitist." Here's some rhetoric that expresses how I feel about such lazy breathless musings: bullshit.

This morning on the radio I heard a member of the United States' Olympic fencing team discuss his craft. It's not merely about poking the other guy with a stick, he noted; it's about thinking three steps ahead of the other guy, so that at the very moment you're poking him you're already planning where to poke him next. That's what a rhetorician does; that's what Obama does; that's what the leader of the Free World should be doing, in every single conversation with his Cabinet, advisers, donors, supporters, detractors, constituents, reporters, and especially with the Russians and the Iranians and the Chinese and the Iraqis and the Pakistanis and the Israelis and the Sudanese and everyone else with whom he must arm-wrestle every day he's on the job.

Barack Obama can do that part of the job, by all evidence quite well.

John McCain? Please.

Who wrote this?

"Bayh may be smart, dedicated, and thoughtful.  But the singular achievement for which he seems to be known is that he's managed to get elected--and remain popular--in a state that's not generally fond of Democrats. And even that is something for which he can't take full credit himself, given that he is part of an Indiana political dynasty. If he had been born "Evan Smith" instead of "Evan Bayh," would he have pulled this off?

This matters because--as I've written before--I think the most important criteria for picking a running mate is choosing somebody capable of serving as president in a time of crisis. It's particularly important when choosing somebody as young as Bayh, since--if all goes well--he'll become the heir apparent eight years hence. Accomplishments don't necessairly equal readiness to be president. But, all other things being equal, I'd argue they are a decent indicator."

BHLnyc  said

"Obama has been a writer, a law professor, a legislator, a community organizer and a United States Senator. His success at each of these has lead him to where he is today"

Can you be more specific? How Obama, a graduate of the top law school distinguished himself as a community organizer.  Was  he average, mediocre community organizer  or was he one of the best community organizer in a country, and his innovated idea were adopted by community organizers across the country?   Did  his efforts have a long lasting positive effect ? Just tell me anything positive ?

For example, Clinton claims:

"As a law student, Hillary represented foster children and parents in family court and worked on some of the earliest studies creating legal standards for identifying and protecting abused children."

If this is at least partially true, it's very impressive for a law student. Not too many law students can claim something like this. This is what I would call outstanding.

Jacob: You embrace the following reasonable quote: "Accomplishments don't necessairly equal readiness to be president. But, all other things being equal, I'd argue they are a decent indicator."

The problem, however, is that you discount in advance any of Obama's impressive accomplishments as self-serving attempts to promote his own interests. Somehow, the mere fact that his accomplishments help his career (which is also true for other politicians, like Hillary), makes them suspect or value-less in your eyes.

When it comes to Clinton's reported accomplishments, though, you bend over backwards to give them as much significance as possible. The fact that she "worked on" early studies to create legal standards for the protection of abused children could mean very little. It could mean: that she worked as some professor's research assistant doing low-level leg work on his/her study at his/her direction. As someone who has "worked on" prominent studies carried out by well-established professors (when I was a graduate student), I know exactly how routine and unchallenging such work can be. Of course, the description of her experience could mean much more -- it could be that she pioneered, designed, and coordinated these studies herself. But notice how very vague the description you quote actually is. Why rush to read her claimed accomplishments in the best light while reading Obama's in the very worst?

Based on my own experiences in academia, I'd give a lot more credit to the kind of work Obama did for the Harvard Law Review (which required independent judgment, outstanding diplomatic skills, and broad knowledge) than to Clinton's having served as a research assistant (if that is what her experience actually amounted to in that instance.) (And I don't intend to diminish her accomplishments overall, which I think are impressive.)

Anyway, Jacob, why not spare the rest of us the tiresome pretense that you are interested in having any kind of real discussion about Obama's accomplishments or qualifications? You've made it clear that nothing fact-based will move you.

Jacob,

I had resolved not to comment on your assinine comments.  But your latest was just ridiculous.  So as a law student Hillary represented foster children in family court?  You find this outstanding?  Here's a hint, buddy: every law school has a law clinic, and every first year student is encouraged to join the law clinic, to help poor people but also - frankly - to put it on your resume so that when you run for public office thirty-five years later, you can boast of having helped old men avoid eviction, refugees avoid deportation, and the poor avoid being railroaded by the justice system.  It counts as a course, you get pass/fail recognition and feel good about yourself, but there is NOTHING impressive about it.

As for "working on earliest studies" ... jesus christ, "Not too many law students can claim something like this"?  Are you for real or are you as ignorant of law schools and law students as you sound?  There are always studies into one thing or another; and many of these studies are "ealiest" of that one thing or another because law profs are always looking for "original materials", and because there is always some social issue that law is catching up with.  As a law student taking five paper seminars in each term of second and third year, at any given point I was "working on" five to seven papers dealing with cutting edge social and legal issues, and I am uniquely disengaged from social and legal issues.  More engaged ones wrote research papers and joined the law review.

And became editors of the law review, if they were very good.

Oh, I remember, Obama was the editor of the Harvard Law Review.

So you find Hillary's "working on" some paper "outstanding" and something that not too many law students can claim, but Obama's being editor of the Harvard Law Review is, like, a workaday thing for any idiot who goes to college?

You have no credibility, and each time you respond, you sink further.  Just stop.

jacob, um...Hillary lost. Get over it already. No one claims Hillary is stupid. The fact is Obama and Hillary are both highly intelligent individuals, the difference between them is Obama is a better leader, evidence of how he is a better leader is based on just how many people voted for him, whereas many people voted for Hillary as a way to vote for Bill or even against Obama (there are a lot of redneck racists out there if you hadn't noticed). If Hillary had married any other man she would be unknown and you can not possibly deny that. If Obama had married another woman he would most likely still be where he is now. Big difference.

It is now between McCain and Obama. Try to stay focused Ok?

Is it any surprise with the god awful post primary campaign Obama has run?

Get him off the podium and into the welfare office. No more cringe inducing, pretend, international statesman tripe; people see through that and the numbers back that up.

He has some great domestic policies (anyone who can p*ss off Irwin Stelzer that much has to be somewhat progressive), get out there and get specific in the hospital, street, community centre, school, anything but another stadium gig.

Worrying.

"Get him off the podium and into the welfare office."

The welfare office?  The *welfare* office?  WTF?

As writerly candidates go, Bill Yard has my vote. Perhaps Obama would, if he'd hire Bill as speech (and ghost-) writer.

hemlock - honest q, no snark intended, totally straight. I'm mystified as to why Obama is such a poor debater and extemporaneous speaker on matters of substance. He fumbles, stumbles, says things he quickly recants or not-so-quickly disavows as "inartful."

Yes, I know he's smart, but the gap between the rhetorical image-- you could say hype-- and the reality is disturbing. With Kerry, I knew and most of the nation knew that the man just wasn't/ isn't terribly bright. His school records show him to have lagged W, for Eli's sake. But with Obama, it's puzzling. It doesn't help matters that he hides from the press, refused to do any interviews at all on his European jaunt, and also disdained to do town halls with McCain.

Seriously, what gives?

thanks in advance,

t

Tep,

I actually think his extemporaneous speech has improved a lot in the last year. And his debating is not terrible. He matched Clinton’s excellent performances on at least a couple of occasions. He was just uneven, while she was consistently great in debates. But I take your point. There’s still a gap between his reputation as a great speaker (based mostly on his big written speeches) and his speaking style in informal settings. I think the gap isn’t as big as you imply; but it exists. At his worst, he hesitates and “ums” a lot and he speaks in unwieldy, sometimes ungrammatical sentences that he revises as he utters them, which can make them hard to follow. Let’s be honest, though: McCain is hardly Mr. Eloquence when he’s speaking off-the-cuff.

Why the gap? I’m not sure. But maybe it has something to do with his intellectual bent and his academic background. The qualities valued in a lot of academic expression are not ones that make for effective extemporaneous speaking in town-hall forums or MSM interviews. For one thing, writing is much more important than speaking is in academic/intellectual settings. And writing gives you the luxury of laboring over your thoughts. If you get used to this luxury, you can lose some of the skills of speaking effectively in informal off-the-cuff settings.

Of course, there are academics who are better at this kind of speaking than Obama is. But most academics I’ve known (myself included) would have to consciously work at being able to produce an effective version of that kind of townhall, MSM interview-type speech . We’d have to “unlearn” some of the tendencies trained/conditioned into us (e.g. a tendency to qualify things, to belabor nuances, to try to lay the foundations of an argument in a thorough way before arriving at a conclusion – all of which can produce the kind of tics Obama’s speech displays: frequent pausing as he reaches for the right words, mid-sentence revisions, the cautious weighing and slow explanation of his points, which to non-academics would understandably seem plodding and boring.) Most academic writing is anything but succinct or lively, anything but punchy or “direct/plain-spoken” in style. And while Obama’s writing in “Dreams” does not suffer from these academic qualities, neither does it channel informal everyday speech. It’s literary and quite crafted.

Anyway, this might not explain the gap completely but I suspect it’s part of the story. The important point for me, though, is that the ums and pauses don’t indicate a lack of intelligence. If anything, they signal his over-reliance on writing-centric thinking. Plus, he’s getting better at off-the-cuff speaking and, in particular, at using shorter clearer sentences in townhalls.

Thanks for your reply. But he's a _lawyer_. I don't know of another lawyer, academic or trial or what-have-you, who speaks as confusedly as Obama does. I can't think of one. Not Dersh, Arthur Miller, Posner, or the other public intellectual types; Roberts and Alito were polished and crisp under far more brutal hot lights; and of course every trial lawyer I've heard, in person or otherwise, has been sharp and to the point. Edwards didn't impress me when I met him but his response was at least clear, fluent, cogent.

I mean, without exaggerating I'd have to say he's one of the least articulate lawyers I've heard. It's yet another example of this enormous gap between the hype surrounding him and the reality. There are so many of these gaps that I'm sorry, I just checked out. I can't support the guy. He needs a real makeover, or some seasoning, but at any rate, lots of time to at least close the gap between the hype and the reality.

To your point about McCain, I don't have high expectations for his speaking skills, so I can't say I'm disappointed. But seriously, I don't see Obama as a Lawyer Silvertongue. I honestly don't get what all the hype is about.

He went to law school but did not practice law for very long and he *certainly* wasn't a trial lawyer. There's a huge difference between researching and writing legal briefs (and other documents) at a huge law firm and preparing for *trials.* I mean, take a look at a typical legal document.  Sharp and fluent they are not. Moreover, he spent 12 years *teaching* law, in a high-powered academic setting. Have you read articles in a law review? They fit the model of academic writing I described. Also, he spent a lot of time writing two books (writing, not extemporaneous thinking.) His background/experience, even in relation to law, is not similar to most of the lawyers you mention.

I have a friend who is brilliant (one of a handful of truly scary-smart people I met at grad school.)  He finished his Phd at one of the top history programs in the country then decided to go to law school. He went to Yale (which, fwiw, is recognized in legal and academic circles as being better than Harvard, popular impressions notwithstanding; it has the highest admission standards and they're extremely competitive.) He now works for a high profile firm in NY and does some academic stuff on the side. In other words, he's successful in his field. And he talks exactly like Obama. It's anecdotal, but the point is that there are lots of different models of the successful lawyer. And the one you offer above is very narrow.

But the main thing is that you're seriously exaggerating the flaws in Obama's speaking style. While he's had some days (a couple of debates and high profile interviews) when it was especially halting, it's been good overall, especially lately. You make him sound like an unintelligible cretin when his speaking is still more effective than McCain's -- certainly more grammatical and coherent when parsed in transcription. Maybe that's how you want to hear him (as an unintelligible cretin.) And if you're choosing the next president based on how the candidates live up to people's particular expectations for them, fine. People do, for whatever reason, have ridiculously high expectations for Obama and relatively low ones for McCain. So your choice is clear.

By the way, Dershowitz and Posner are among those truly exceptional individuals who are freakishly gifted in their fields. Has there ever been a presidential candidate about whom this could honestly be said? Certainly not among the '08 offerings. The comparison is unfair. Or at least unrealistic. And I doubt D. or P. would be good speakers on the campaign stump. Their speech might be fluent and sharp, but it wouldn't be folksy or simple enough to have the necessary impact. Like Obama, they'd probably have to work at distilling what they wanted to say into sufficiently simple and clear campaign-speak.

And I meant "freakishly" in a *good* way  :-)