TNR BLOGS

December 01, 2008 | 11:48 AM
December 01, 2008 | 11:20 AM
December 01, 2008 | 10:16 AM

December 01, 2008 | 11:22 AM
December 01, 2008 | 11:10 AM
December 01, 2008 | 9:57 AM

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

December 01, 2008 | 12:00 PM
November 29, 2008 | 3:23 PM
November 29, 2008 | 2:18 PM
COLUMNISTS
TODAY'S STORIES
16.07.2008
Obama's Comedy Problem, Cont'd.

Maureen Dowd raises some similar points about the problem that arises if people aren't comfortable making fun of Obama, then does her best to fashion a comic leitmotif for him. (Somehow I doubt the campaign will be thanking her for it.) Her suggestion: Obama-the-buzz-killer:

If Obama offers only eat-your-arugula chiding and chilly earnestness, he becomes an otherworldly type, not the regular guy he needs to be.

He’s already in danger of seeming too prissy about food — a perception heightened when The Wall Street Journal reported that the planners for Obama’s convention have hired the first-ever Director of Greening, the environmental activist Andrea Robinson. She in turn hired an Official Carbon Adviser to “measure the greenhouse-gas emissions of every placard, every plane trip, every appetizer prepared and every coffee cup tossed.”

The “lean ‘n’ green” catering guidelines, The Journal said, bar fried food and instruct that, “on the theory that nutritious food is more vibrant, each meal should include ‘at least three of the following colors: red, green, yellow, blue/purple, and white.’ (Garnishes don’t count.) At least 70% of the ingredients should be organic or grown locally, to minimize emissions from fuel during transportation.”

Bring it on, Ozone Democrats! Because if Obama gets elected and there is nothing funny about him, it won’t be the economy that’s depressed. It will be the rest of us.

There maybe something to this. No question Obama--and, for that matter, the entire campaign--can be a little self-serious at times. On the other hand, Obama actually has a pretty good sense of humor, and, more importantly, he can be amusingly self-deprecating. If this becomes the frame for him (comic or otherwise), he shouldn't have trouble subverting it.

It's the whiff of the elitist charge that's both less fair, more damaging, and potentially harder to shake. Not eat-your-vegetables chiding, in Dowd's telling, but "eat-your-arugula chiding." I guess Obama did open himself up to this with his famous Whole Foods comment. Still, he's now getting indicted for all sorts of elitist crimes he had nothing to do with. The Wall Street Journal report Dowd cites, for example, says the green convention is the brainchild of Denver Mayor John Hickenlooper, who appears to have launched the effort long before Obama became the presumptive nominee.

Depressingly, though, I expect it'll be the elitist charge rather than the overly-earnest charge that carries the day when comics finally get around to mocking him. It's probably easier to illustrate (even if the examples turn out to be bogus). And, if nothing else, it's the one the GOP has traditionally favored.

--Noam Scheiber

Posted: Wednesday, July 16, 2008 11:41 AM with 82 comment(s)

Comments

You must be logged-in to comment.

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

apfrankel said:

"He’s already in danger of seeming too prissy about food — a perception heightened when..."

Ah, yes.  Classic Dowd.  Sure she's insinuating something false (that Obama had anything to do with the food selection) -- but you see, she's not technically lying!  She's only suggesting that others might draw a certain inference based on certain facts, not that the inference is correct!

July 16, 2008 11:54 AM

epicciuto said:

It's kind of depressing that his preference for healthy eating, organic foods, etc. is something for which he should be judged harshly.

July 16, 2008 12:09 PM

perkowitz said:

why do people read maureen dowd again? or the rest of the NYT op-ed page?

July 16, 2008 12:21 PM

boneill said:

THis...

"Because if Obama gets elected and there is nothing funny about him, it won’t be the economy that’s depressed. It will be the rest of us."

Made me abgry for about an hour this morning.  Really, Maureen?  Haivng someone serious in the WH would depress you?  You vapid moron.  

July 16, 2008 12:51 PM

michael said:

Obama should reconsider his smoking cessation. Check the demo for people in their 40's who smoke. Yeah, when he's at a bar or restaurant he can slide out and burn one on the curb. Trust me, it could be five below zero in Northern Indiana and the smokers Barack would meet outside would provide a good as gold photo op. In the Summer he could have a line of Harley's in the background.

That would silence anyone who thinks his pals are too elite. Sure, he'll have to weather the flak for not being a good example, bla, bla, bla...But there is a solid fraternity among those who are shunned to the outdoors. I've bonded with people who have a .45 strapped to their hip and they aren't wearing a badge. He may take a small hit (no pun) but the combination of their numbers (35% of Males, 22% of Females smoke) and region (Kentucky, West Virginia, Oklahoma and Mississippi top the list) may provide a net gain in approval from people who can't find a reason to identify with him.

Sure, his overall healthy lifestyle is great but he's maxed out that crowd and there is no better way to meet and greet the demo he needs. No, he won't find them indoors but they aren't in hiding. He can join them and all he has to to is to light one up on their turf. The bonus will be when the closet smoker bums a butt and plenty of those sorts will provide silent approval...

July 16, 2008 1:05 PM

williamyard said:

Obama: "I just flew in from Tehran, and boy are my jokes tired!"

[rimshot]

[scattered, light applause]

Obama: "Thankyou, thankyouverymuch, yer too kind...I'll be here 'til 2017...Try the arugula!"

July 16, 2008 1:11 PM

teplukhin2you said:

Earth tones, maybe?

Oops, I'm getting my female zeitgeist-advisers mixed up

July 16, 2008 1:18 PM

TammyA said:

Setting aside that Maureen Dowd's musings are rather consistently ridiculo, it seems to me that Obama likes to control the humor about him.  He wants to make the jokes about others or himself.  He does not like to be on the receiving end or have jokes, comedy etc. made about him when he's not present.  My friends, our candidate is serious, cocky (see Politico's story yesterday on his alienating dems on the Hill), elitist and, dare I say, thin-skinned.  He has got to toughen up before the convention.  I endorse Obama's diet stuff, but his menu is what the middleclass can afford.  It's available at Whole Foods.  

Obama reacts to everything and must learn to let things slide on by and accept that not everyone will be as crazy about him as his primary contingent was.  He is too worried with his image.  He needs to worry more about his substance, cause it's been changing quite a bit.  I want to be enthusiastic about this guy, but he's making it difficult.  Of course I'll vote for him, but he's not inspiring me to volunteer or donate to him.  

July 16, 2008 1:19 PM

GSpinks said:

"If Obama offers only eat-your-arugula chiding and chilly earnestness, he becomes an otherworldly type, not the regular guy he needs to be."

So basically he manages to not make an ass out of himself on a day-to-day basis, and therefore everyone is complaining that there is nothing about which to chide him, or that late night talk show hosts have to do more than mention the guy's name in order to elicit a laugh...that is quite the double-standard.

I think the real problem is that half of the "comedians" are actually dimwits with half-wits for writers. Case in point, Carlos Mencia tore up Obama (and McCain) in his first episode this season, and there were no N***** jokes involved! What Genius! Apparently, Maher and Colbert, aside from having some lame jokes, are doing just fine too. I love the one from Maher, "Obama isn't black enough? He bowled a 37 -- that's black enough for me!" Although, it would be funnier for me if I didn't actually know black people who average over 200.

The REAL problem: lame comedians who depend too much on the inate Parody of the subject itself, rather than being good comedians. White Guilt my ass.

"It's kind of depressing that his preference for healthy eating, organic foods, etc. is something for which he should be judged harshly."

Maybe there was something behind WJC and his Big Mac fetish (besides the girl behind the counter)...the leader of the free world eating at McDonald's can be a powerful image.

July 16, 2008 1:24 PM

teplukhin2you said:

What Tammy said. He's a bright guy but man, is he ever smug and self-regarding. He _badly_ needs to lighten up, learn a few lessons in humility.

July 16, 2008 1:38 PM

jhildner said:

When are people going to lay off us elitists just because we like our lettuce fancy.  Boy, oh boy.  Nothing beats fancy lettuce.  The best thing about fancy lettuce is the little feeling of superiority you get when you eat it and, importantly, when you buy it.  You see, fancy lettuce is only available at your finer stores.  You won't find fancy lettuce at your Applebee's salad bar.  Now, you won't find any lettuce at your Applebee's salad bar, because Applebee's doesn't have a salad bar, but you get my point.  Only a finer class of people shop for fancy lettuce.  When I'm at the market about to pick up some fancy lettuce, and I see someone else going for the fancy lettuce, we give each other a knowing look.  As in, Hey, How's About That Fancy Lettuce!  Yep, she's in the club.  The fancy lettuce club.  We might exchange a wink or even, if one of us is a bit more forward, a terrorist fist jab.  (It's an elitist thing.)  

Nothing "ordinary" about fancy lettuce.  That's true.  Fancy lettuce isn't ordinary; it's *extraordinary*.  So much better than Applebee's lettuce.  It says something about you, too.  It says, "My lettuce is better than your lettuce."  Which in turn says, 'My soul is better than your soul."  It's a simple equation, but so many people don't get it.  They say, "Well, I don't like fancy lettuce.  Fancy lettuce is for snobs.  Anybody who eats fancy lettuce is a snob and doesn't care about me."  They often say this as they pick some Applebee's lettuce from their gross, yellow teeth.  What they don't understand is that we fancy lettuce eaters are snobs and don't care about them because we are *better* than they are.  That's just a fact.  I mean, who's eating the fancy lettuce here?  My advice to those who feel left out is, "Let them eat fancy lettuce!"

July 16, 2008 2:40 PM

Wandreycer1 said:

Obama expressed the views of the majority of Americans, which doesn't surprise me. Forget him, the cartoon was insulting to his wife, which I don't think he's required to be bemused about.  I hope he never is and most people would agree.  

I can perfectly imagine the cries of "callow!" and "pandering" if he hadn't caught Michelle's back, so predictable I could write the posts myself.  The bias is so manifest and so ridiculous.  

Obama is a tad tied up right now working on things that matter, like the excellent FP speech he gave this morning.  Important things do not include entertaining Maureen Dowd or showing what a regular guy he can be so the overeducated arugula eaters who have even bothered with this issue won't think he's thin skinned.  

Good for him.

July 16, 2008 2:41 PM

jhildner said:

Suggested Obama campaign slogan:  Better Than You In Every Way.

July 16, 2008 3:02 PM

michael said:

Tep and Tammy, I can't believe you don't know plenty of people like him but you must also know it's not a big deal. Well, I got over it...

I don't think Obama's perceived attitude-behavior is anything more than a life spent where he decided to  err on the serious side.  We see it less in political figures 'cause they grasp the art of BS but Obama was well on the path of serious and locked into circumspection before 'too rigid' became an issue.

It isn't as simple as assigning it to his race or the leap he made from the class he was raised in. I know all types of people who leave their self behind just after college.  It is limited to work or work functions and they have been doing it for decades.  

It ranges from a sort of sanitizing any hint of political identity to the music they have in their car, the vehicle they chose and one guy (a CFO) removed a Parrothead license plate when he got and Exec. parking slot, Oh, he also had a great, soft leather briefcase and gave it up for a brand.

I also noticed that people who sought success in the '80's drew a line and rejected anything that smacked of the '60's. It was my guess that they concluded a earnest and solemn demeanor would set them apart from the radicals the came before them. Since I was born in '55 and barely a decade older I can bear witness to friends, family and coworkers who were critical of my casual attitude and they were rule bound to some silly (to me) codes that have lasted for 25 years.

But it isn't elitism and they are fine when they aren't on the clock.  But it is tough to debate that their preoccupation with a crazy code didn't pay off.  They bowed easily to authority and moved through the ranks and were on a treadmill with others who reinforced that plan.

Then again, look at how the candor and a less self-conscious Michelle is received. While the guys I know think she's attractive because she's genuine?  Well, she's also paying the price because some people might be jealous that she succeeded and doesn't need to consult manuals of style.

Not that some aren't smug, but it's tough to conclude without seeing them when they think it's safe to relax.

July 16, 2008 3:02 PM

jwl2672 said:

eppicuito

That's cause "organic" food and salads are the domain of effete post-modern men.  90% of you men on this website wouldn't agree with me because you're like him, but believe me, the average American likes a good juicy steak and a burger on Independence Day.  The problem with liberals is that they have no testosterone at all.  Hence the skeletal body on the "very-good looking" Obama.  That naked Obama picture of him rising out of the sea like Monty Burns may very well be the "Dukakis in a tank" equivalent.

Image matters a great deal and I will not be sending a salad-eating, Whole Foods shopper to a meeting with Vlad the Impaler.

July 16, 2008 3:17 PM

jhildner said:

Adding to Michael's point:  I think all you people are crazy.  He's easy-going, funny, and winning on talk shows and in lighter contexts.  All this smug shit is pulled out of America's collective asshole.  Maybe it's because many Americans feel threatened by someone who declines to put on a great show of pretending to be a jackass.

July 16, 2008 3:19 PM

teplukhin2you said:

hildner - so what's with the Brandenburg Gate stunt? I'm sure those who like Wonder Boy will applaud his little rock-star foray, but to more sober minds it seems a mite bit self-regarding to pull such a stunt _before_ you're elected.

July 16, 2008 3:47 PM

teplukhin2you said:

Truly brilliant people are truly rare. Most of us never meet such people. A close friend of mine administers very large sums of money each year to the nation's most brilliant scientists, aka "genius grants." Nearly every one of these _truly_ brilliant individuals is humble and self-effacing. By contrast, Wonder Boy is, like every other professional pol of any consequence, an egotist. He's a lot smoother and more convincing than Clinton, but please, get real. He loves this grand ego trip as much as any of 'em.

July 16, 2008 3:50 PM

lamh31 said:

I agree with you jhildner.

I defintely like Obama's stoic, articulate, serious, confident, self-deprecating manner much more than the current, buffoonish, completely clueless commander in chief anyday.  I mean the man was praticallty tap-dancing on the steps of the white house before a press conference.  I personally like the idea of having a president who people may take seriously once he opens his mouth, not one who I laugh at before he even begins to speak.  Besides, I think that it is okay to have a chuckle at the president's expense, but look at what is going on with Bush.  He has become so much of a joke in America by a large group of voters because of his utter ridicoulousness.

As for the "elitist" label, doesn't elite mean the best.  Wouldn't you rather be Tiger Woods and "elite" athlete than an average golfer.  I agree with John Stewart.  I kinda want a President who is smarter than me, and I consider myself above average.  Ya'll gotta admit, it would definitely be better than I current "moron in chief".

July 16, 2008 4:01 PM

TammyA said:

The problem with the elistist label or perception is that it disallows Obama to draw the other voters he needs.  We are all looking forward to someone who is opposite Bush's style and character, but have you stopped to think that shouldn't be our yardstick here at TNR and is certainly not that of the poor or working class?   Obama must exand to them.

Every holiday my twin sister (middleclass yuppy) takes home to our working class family a big salad of ixed organic greens with artichokes and mandarin oranges.  My Mom makes her classic white potato salad with heavy mayo and presents it on a bed of iceberg.  Which do you think goes quickest?  Obama should offer both.  Now to Tep's point about the gate in Germany.  I was waiting for someone to bring this up.  Obama's constant insistence on HUGE audiences are proof of his own insecurities with image.  He is acting like a rock star, not a predicential candidate.  But even rock stars have fun with tabloids and late night comedy.  

July 16, 2008 4:36 PM

Idefix said:

I am coming too late to this post, many of you have already said it, but let me have the pleasure to repeat it: Maureen Dowd is a vapid, unscrupulous moron uncontaminated by anything even vaguely resembling the truth.

I can't believe we are sinking so low as to talk about "comedy problems"! I know it's July and it's hot, but please, stay indoors and dip your head into an ice bucket.

July 16, 2008 4:47 PM

williamyard said:

jhildner (OT):

In case you missed it, I belatedly replied to your fine post on the "Comment of the Day" thread a couple days ago. Nutshell: after further thought, I think you were right and I wasn't.

Thanks for responding!

July 16, 2008 5:10 PM

icarusr said:

"The problem with liberals is that they have no testosterone at all."

JWL, you just bed over, I'll show you testosterone.  Oh wait, you're probably some fat schmuck in white socks, tennis shoes and soiled week-old Walmart briefs.  It isn't lack of testosterone; it's having taste, that is the issue.

I really love these red-meat conservatives who are so full of testosterone who like to send other people's kids to get killed by snipers and road-side bombs.  I should have thought that having been screwed and screwed over for eight years by the testosteron-driven machismo of Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld, there would be at least slightly more sense in pressing on this issue.  Always remember that your backbone is in your back, not in your balls; that's what you need to face the world, not hormone-driven bravado.

Tep: you're fast becoming a parody of yourself on Obama.  I know a lot of "genius" surgeons, doctors and trial lawyers, and not one of them is self-effacing or humble.  And when I argue before international judges, I don't crack self-effacing jokes: my arguments and analysis are the best on the table, and they better accept them or they will make legal error.  I may not quite put it that way, but I can't appear in court and expect to win by suggesting I might be wrong and the other lawyers have as good a case as I do.  You can't run for the President of the United States and pretend that you are just a regular Joe.  If you ARE a regular Joe, like Shrub, you fuck the country; and if you are voter inclined to vote not for brains but for testosterone or beer-drinking ability, then you deserve to be fucked, which is what Bush has done to the US. (And yeah, I did think Clinton demeaned the office and he should not be a role model.)

I don't look for a comedian or Mr. Humble as the next President; I don't care if he eats arugula (a common weed eaten by common folk all over Europe) or iceberg lettuce; I want him to take himself, the elections, the electorate, the mandate, and the office seriously.

July 16, 2008 5:19 PM

icarusr said:

Idefix: I second both your sentiments.

July 16, 2008 5:20 PM

williamyard said:

lamb31 wrote:

"I definitely like Obama's stoic, articulate, serious, confident, self-deprecating manner much more than the current, buffoonish, completely clueless commander in chief anyday."

Wish I'd written that.

July 16, 2008 5:21 PM

literatehobo said:

jwl,

As an organic farmer who hunts, raises & butchers his own meat, clears his own fields and harvests his own firewood with a chainsaw & tractor, I'm here to observe that you're utterly full of what I shovel out of my barn on a regular basis.

The whole "arugula and organic foods" schtick only works for major urban areas. I have no doubt that NYC and whatever large city you live in have a healthy population of pretentious folks who buy organic to be seen doing it. Whole Foods organic, corporate-raised and shipped around the world, is a far cry from direct-market-farmed organic. Market farmers like myself represent the conservative ideal: independant American enterpreneurs producing goods on an open, un-subsidized market for sale directly to consumers who make an active choice to buy our products. Little to no government intervention, lots of hard work, a far more traditional way of life than country-club Republicans can imagine. I farm so I can be my own boss; I raise, butcher, and harvest my own food because I don't trust anyone else to do it; I'm organic because to me it's the conservative approach. The way things used to be, the traditional way of farming that my ancestors would recognize before WWII turned the ag world upside down. My great grandfather would be far more comfortable on my organic farm than on any "modern" farm.

Both McCain and Obama seem as utterly ignorant of agriculture outside corn as you do. Obama chooses what he thinks is healthy food without having any concept of where it comes from and whether it matters; McCain isn't even aware enough to wonder whether there are other types of farms than corn. I wonder, jwl, what do YOU think a "farmer" is, and why does "organic" instantly disqualify someone?

July 16, 2008 5:24 PM

michael said:

I don't think anyone who posts here is stupid but we might concede that Barack can't abandon a deeper philosophical and thoughtful style and that is rare in Presidential races. Maybe I'm more comfortable around people who place respect above charm.  No, I'm not looking for a friend and most of what we will face us in '09 may be graver than we imagine.

After eight years of a amiable idiot maybe we can reject the idiot part and not demand the buddy part be retained.  

I do think it would help Barack to lighten up as people do vote for nice guys who appear vulnerable.  But he's not intimidating or boring. If he isn't as smart as I think, I lose...but he's won me over with his brain. How novel, a President who places thinking and provoking thought above entertaining...

July 16, 2008 5:32 PM

WoodyBombay said:

On July 4th I had a couple of American-brewed beers in the early afternoon, then I switched to a delicious cabernet for dinner. That's when I had a steak with an arugula salad as a side. (jwl's head just 'sploded.)

This obsession with alleged elitism and what Obama eats and where he shops is positively RIDICULOUS. It was ridiculous back when George HW Bush felt the need to let the world know he ate pork rinds. It was ridiculous when Hillary was throwing back shots with the "regular folks." It's ridiculous now. It's so ridiculous that, in this post, the phrase "There may be something to this" is used directly after several graphs written by Maureen Dowd. That's a phrase that *never* should follow a Dowdism.

Holy crap. Look at some of the things he's been criticized for lately: Speaking in front of big crowds! Eating healthfully! Holding consistent poll leads over McCain (not big enough)! He's serious-minded! And some of the people carping about this nonsense can often be found, at other times, bemoaning the "silly season" and the lack of focus on serious issues.

July 16, 2008 5:39 PM

Wandreycer1 said:

"Obama's constant insistence on HUGE audiences are proof of his own insecurities with image."

Tammy, the mind reading is tired and says more about you than him.  

The last two times I saw Obama speak it was 2,000 people or less.  If you look at his schedule, most of his appearences are not big venues, but even if they were - so what?  

You have personal knowledge of his Presidential campaign needs and strategies aand they apparently - in addition to everything else he must do - revolve around taking care of his insecurities with his image.  And he is somehow smug and confident AND insecure about his image to the point of it driving his campaign.  

Right.  

He is not a back slapper and has a reserved serious personality, even curt at times, that's true. That's subjective whether that bothers you or not.  I welcome it, but I'd like to see him try to relax a bit more at times.  He is very serious, which has been noted about him since his college days.

The last two times my mother saw him speak, in small towns in Oregon, no less, there were 10 to 15 thousand people WAITING OUTSIDE of the venues.  They waited through the entire speeches.  This is pretty well documented lots of places he speaks.  

I don't have personal knowledge of his internal motivation and couldn't care less, but perhaps he speaks to big audiences at times because that many people want to see him.  I've never really grasped exactly what the problem is with that, just that the supporters of other candidates who couldn't get that many people in to see them had a perpetually ill-defined problem with it.  Its pretty much OPP at this point.

This elitist thing is an old Hillary era shtick - that the whole angle has legs with him because he went to Harvard and mentioned Whole Foods, that he speaks in full sentences and mentions writers, that we should all encourage him to drink more budweiser, change his personality to suit the moment, kiss some blue collar ass.  Am I missing anything?

I think Obama has done pretty well just being himself and only falls flat when he doesn't do that.  I have confidence that this elitist line of thought is not as important to people as re-establishing their country, but I do like John McCain's sense of humor and recognize it as his secret weapon.  I guess people don't much care if McCain eats arugula, lucky guy.

As far as speaking at Bradenburg, I'd try to get tickets to it and would love every minute to of it.  I'd love to see John McCain there as well.  

July 16, 2008 5:47 PM

The Plank said:

Obama’s ability to take a joke was questioned again today in a Maureen Dowd column. Noam objected to

July 16, 2008 5:47 PM

hemlock41 said:

The guys at jibjab don't seem to have a problem making fun of Obama. Their new video is funnier on McCain, but they manage to wring some good humor out of Obama's self-styled image as a unifier and "new politics" guy.

July 16, 2008 5:55 PM

hemlock41 said:

I take that back. It's not really funny on McCain... and less funny all around than their first video. But Obama on a pink-maned unicorn is pretty good.

July 16, 2008 6:01 PM

teplukhin2you said:

Icarus - you have a rather low standard for "genius." Nobelist physicists, sure. Some senior NIH researchers, a fair number of faculty in hard sciences in the U Cal system and maybe a few  Buckminster Fuller polymath/artist types  deserve that label, too.

But I seriously doubt there are more than a handful of docs and lawyers in North America who deserve it. And certainly not anyone in democratic politics, anywhere, since Jefferson's day. I am not asking that Wonder Boy "act like a regular Joe." He isn't, and neither is Mitt Romney or Bobby Jindal or Barney Frank. But I'd be willing to bet good money that each of those worthies is superior to Wonder Boy when it comes to raw candle power-- which is *not* the same as charm, or introspective insight, or speechifying skill.

July 16, 2008 6:12 PM

GSpinks said:

"We are all looking forward to someone who is opposite Bush's style and character, but have you stopped to think that shouldn't be our yardstick here at TNR and is certainly not that of the poor or working class?"

Yeah, I've stopped to think about it, then I remember what a fuckup The Shrub was for the first 7 years of his reign. I don't know about the rest of you, but I think The Shrub's 2 terms in office can officially be made into a poli-sci textbook explaining exactly what NOT to do when elected POTUS. His greatest accomplishments include record levels of deficit spending, and the longest war in American history; these are followed closely by 2 economic stimulus packages designed to stave off 2 seperate recessions, brought about by some of the worst fiscal management in American history. I also give honorable mention to Compassionate Conservatism which apparently was The Shrub's euphemism for Cronyism for Evangelical Republicans, and NCLB whose record speaks for itself.

July 16, 2008 6:13 PM

Wandreycer1 said:

Jon Stewart is hilarious on Obama.

July 16, 2008 6:19 PM

icarusr said:

Literate: thanks for bringing us back to earth.  

I've never been to Whole Foods and do most of my shopping in the farmer's market and the butcher around the corner from where I live.  I just don't understand since when eating healthy became a nono, when "salad eating" became an insult.  People who think Maureen Dowd and Homer Simpson are paragons of political analysis should be fed what you shovel.

July 16, 2008 6:26 PM

icarusr said:

Tep: "genius" is usually IQ above 140, or about the top 1.5% of the population, and a lot of top surgeons and litigators would qualify.  I have met a couple of Nobel Prize winners - had a private lunch with one and the other has been a customer of my dad's for twenty years - and "self-effacing" is not an adjective that comes to mind describing them, at least, not when they are talking about their accomplishments or their expertise.

There are "geniuses" in the social sciences, in law, and in the arts as well - some are humble, others not, but not one of them would be where he or she is by being too self-effacing.  Let's be serious, now.

Your repeated use of "Wonder Boy" is intended, I gather, to be either funny or demeaning to Obama.  Like the Messiah trope, it is not funny and only demeans you, who utters such a childish thing, and insults me, because I am engaged in a serious discussion with you.  Of course, objectively speaking, Obama is a phenomenon of US history, as is Mrs. Clinton, in a way that no other modern politician has managed to be - none, in fact, since Kennedy.  Make fun of that as much as you like, but as I said, calling him "Wonder Boy" says much more about you than him.  Personally, I thought better of you, but I am known for my bad judgement from time to time.  Better than calling him just "Boy", though, I grant you that much.

Finally, whether Obama is smarter or less smart than the worthies your mentioned is somewhat beside the point, is it not?  Neither Barney Frank nor Mitt Romeny is known for their self-effacing humble personas, so I am not quite sure what the point is you are trying to make.  And Mitt Romney lost - LOST - to McCain.  As for Bobby Jindal - you do know, don't you, that he is a creationist?  To me, that makes him less intelligent than a turnip or a head of iceberg lettuce.  Surely you can do better than him, if you mean to tear down Obama.

July 16, 2008 6:41 PM

boneill said:

You know what's funny?  Jwl.  That kid is a perfect spot-on parody of a mouth-breathing chicken-hawk coward.  He's a modern master.  

July 16, 2008 6:43 PM

primwallflow said:

Agreed, hemlock41. Obama frolicking in a Disney-esque world made my day.

July 16, 2008 6:44 PM

jhildner said:

Yard, thanks, I saw and responded today.  Thanks again for your kind words!

July 16, 2008 6:55 PM

literatehobo said:

icarusr,

Did you mean that pun?

Actually, in my opinion Homer Simpson IS a paragon of political analysis. At least he was in college when I had a TV and watched The Simpsons. I don't think I've seen it since 2001.

There's nothing wrong with Whole Foods per se, and I shouldn't have painted it with such a large brush. The whole "eating healthy is elitist" thing is pretty simple to me; people don't like being lectured, and they don't like being told they're wrong, especially by other people that seem different. This is no stunning insight, but Democrats' biggest problem for me has always been the top-down attitude. Right or wrong, it doesn't sit well. I objected to John Edwards' prancing around claiming he would throw millions of dollars into rural progress think tanks and initiatives, which translate to "city people who will make more money than I do at telling me how to run my farm". No, thanks, John. Anyone who claims that a town of 20,000 is "rural America" tells me right up front he's full of it.

It's the same dynamic as fuel efficiency. People don't like being lectured by the likes of Al Gore that they need to buy a hybrid and take mass transit, regardless of the value of that advice. But when natural market forces create a personal incentive to do so, people move that direction. Food is the same way. No one likes being lectured by the food police, but when obesity and diabetes are skyrocketing, food safety scares abound, import prices soar, and so on, people naturally start to shift behaviors and rethink their priorities. I'd much rather have it that way.

Obama comes off as elitist on food because it's clear he doesn't actually know anything about food and agriculture. If he were able to say "I eat/don't eat____ because I've met the farmer and understand the ag processes and implications that influence _____" he'd have more credibility. Michelle's "who can afford fresh fruit" quote illustrates that perfectly? Your household income is near $1,000,000, and you're bitching about the price of fruit? Clearly clueless.

July 16, 2008 6:57 PM

TammyA said:

Wandrey.  President Merkel doesn't want Obama to speak at the gate for very valid reasons.  The Obama camp should drop this request, if they haven't already.  He can do this as president, but not as a candidate.  There is more to lose (alienating leaders of other countries) pushing forward with that request than simply speaking to a smaller crowd, say 15,000 instead 40,000 +.  The media will surely cover it well.  All the major anchors will be traveling with him on his trip.  This is not something McCain got.  That's a sure indicator of Obama's popularity.  Think also of the fuss Obama made about changing the venue for the convention speech so they could have a certain "visual" effect.  It is now going to cause strife and consequence for other parts of the convention and convention actors.  Again, what exactly are the benefits there?  What does an audience of 75,000 say differently from one of 15,000?  Not that much, substantively.   We know he can fill a room.  So what?

Also, the elitist charge has come back up not from the Hillary camp, but planty of others outside it.  It's his problem, not hers. We respectfully disagree here.

July 16, 2008 7:21 PM

jhildner said:

Read Woody and learn.  I might add to his list, he's not an NIH senior researcher nor is he employed in any hard science department at any University of California campus.  Neither is he Buckminster Fuller.  (Really?  Buckminster Fuller?  He's the only bona fide genius you want to name?)

Tep, nobody is saying Obama's an intellectual "genius."  You once again find yourself arguing against nothing and nobody.  He's unusually smart and unusually intellectual for a politician.  So?  As Truman Capote might say, "What's your stupid fucking point?"

By the way, I don't know if you are familiar with the kind of discussions that go on in the sort of fancy law school where Obama excelled (Harvard ) and later taught (Chicago) and which offered him a professorship, but I'm pretty sure they routinely go beyond Buckminster Fuller territory, sophistication-wise.

July 16, 2008 7:28 PM

lamh31 said:

icarusr,

I noticed the whole "Wonder Boy" term as well and was gonna post a comment on it, but you articulated what I was thinking so well, that I just wanted to co-sign ur comment.

July 16, 2008 7:34 PM

jhildner said:

literate:  Who's lecturing anybody?  He mentioned that he ate arugula.  Christ.  He's not saying everyone must eat arugula or judging people based on what they eat.  Nobody has ever said that in the recorded history of mankind.  Here's what I hear:  "Ordinary Americans" are lecturing "elitists" on what *they* should eat and drink -- i.e., shitty beer and steak.  Now, speaking for myself, I love shitty beer and steak.  I even loved shitty beer and steak when I lived on the Upper Fucking West Side of New York.  I'm having shitty beer and steak this evening, as a matter of fact.  But, who's the one with a stick up their ass about food?  Hint:  It's not the the fancy-lettuce eaters.  It's the people who absurdly *despise* fancy-lettuce eaters and are absurdly proud of the fact that they don't even know what the fuck arugula is, thank you very much.  If they are going to have *any* salad, which, per jwl, is already pretty gay to begin with, it's going to consist of iceberg, two cucumber slices, a tomoto wedge, and be drowned in ranch dressing, dammit.  (Sounds good, actually.  I think I'll have that tonight too.)  Seems to me that on this cultural bullshit, the so-called ordinary Americans turn out to be the most thin-skinned, pompous fuckers out there.

July 16, 2008 7:53 PM

Wandreycer1 said:

Tammy A - couldn't disagree more.  I am on several listserves and one commitee here in NY for the convention and haven't heard a syllable of anything you mention.  That horror show of a princess Obama must really be tormenting everyone.  Besides, I don't care what the man wants, he has more than earned it, or do you not think so?  

I don't ever hear about the elitist thing from anyone else but Hillary people focused on a mean spirited fantasy of a person rather than a three dimensional one.  

You're speak in really personally unflattering ways about him, his motivations, who he really is and what he really means as if you know the man personally, which is bizarre and also very Maureen Dowdish of you.  You base your accusations on almost nothing of substance but your own thoughts.  God forbid the man make one false move, one mistake, or there's the legions of pouncers ready to add to their psychological profiles.  

I'll focus on the fact that Dennis Ross signed up with Obama as his Middle East expert yesterday, which is a great thing and on Obama's bold foreign policy speech today.  You can focus on your mind reading profiles and deep issues like crowd sizes and arugula.

July 16, 2008 9:03 PM

Wandreycer1 said:

Jhildner, as someone sitting on the upper fucking west side reading your awesome post, I salute you sir.  

July 16, 2008 9:05 PM

TammyA said:

Wandrey.  Your defensiveness about Obama reminds me of the primary days when no one could say/write here at TNR anything bad about the guy, they could only do so to Hillary.  While you consistently criticize me for not including "evidence" of the "charges" I make, you GSPinks or others don't provide any either.  You simply coast on the pro-Obama hegemony that exists here at TNR.  

Obama has switched his positions on so many liberal issues.  He's veering conservative, backing off the promises he made in the primaries.  Should we be happy about this? Accept it with blind faith?  Must we sacrifice what we believe in as right for the country so the man can "win?"  What kind of victiory is that?  It's not good enough for me to elect a democrat, a non-white male, someone who speaks well, wrote two best-sellers, or is intelligent.  I want a solid leader who deliver a liberal agenda and can restore our country as a respectable and humane global citizen.

Now is a great opportunity to increase faith in a progressive agenda.  Obama had people on board when he was building a movement in the primaries.  His "we" concept, issues and stances drew people in and eventually won me over.  But his movemment is over.  He is now the same old liberal pol moving to the center.  

Think about what he could have done.  He could have used his "fame" traits, moxy, judgment whatever, to stay on message with the movement and bring more people into it.  Instead, he changed his poisitions (FISA, death penalty, campaign finance, abortion, education) for political advantage.  I'm having a hard time with it.  I don't know what he'll do as president and neither do you or anyone else. In the mean time, I'll stay critical of the very guy I plan to vote for because I'd rather swim in reality than sink in de Nile.

July 16, 2008 9:41 PM

icarusr said:

Literate: the pun was, sadly, intended; old habit, trying to get rid of it.  Apologies.

I lived in the Swiss countryside for four years; I never got the whole Whole Food thing, because in season, you always buy everything local in Switzerland.  (Bizarre weather inversion in the Valais means that in the middle of the Alps they grow amazing apricots and peaches; I had cherry trees in the garden, vinyards off the backyard, apple, plum and peach trees down the road; and a cornfield across the street from me.)  Got my pork, chicken and eggs from a farm across the border in France, but the beef was Argentine.  It is a way of life; it is not always convenient, but you know how I learned it?  By the Swiss all around nagging me all the time about appreciating the bounty of their country instead of getting my packaged goods from the supermarket.  I paid more, of course, but you know, once you get into the habit of getting local, it becomes next to impossible to go back.  Plus, the pork guy knew me, and knew what I liked; and there are few things more wonderful than fresh bread right out of the oven.  I know what you mean about the lecturing, but I think Jhildner is also right about the reverse lecturing.  And Obama might well not know as much as you about farming, but he is probably more sympathetic to what you do than the average Joe Sixpack, who wants his steak big and his beer watery.

Jhildner: Each to their own, but up here, there are exactly 31,558,971 Canadians who consider "American beer" a lesser species of bottled water.  I find Bud to be an insult to my manhood, and Miller Lite - any "Lite" beer, in fact - to be an offence unto Nature.  It is not elitist to like good beer, to demand that beer taste like beer and that it have at least 5% per volume alcohol.  We're not talking about fancy shmancy beer like Geuze or Chimay; I'm talking about good old fashioned hearty, and REAL, beer like Pilzen and the original Budweiser, or Molson, or even Labatt's 50.

July 16, 2008 10:05 PM

icarusr said:

TammyA: Fair enough, but could you please tell me one thing Obama has done that casts down on his ability to "restore our country as a respectable and humane global citizen"?  I can cite many examples about McCain - his "bomb, bomb, bomb Iran" being only the very tip of a large iceberg - but Obama?

And let us assume that you are right about his staying on message.  For one thing, how do you propose that a movement leader can get elected as President?  

I have run for office; even for a constituency of 9,000 and over a two month campaign period, I had to do a considerable amount of tacking, while trying to keep to the core message.  And the main issue on the plank - the one thing I ran on and was consistent on - I had to give up when the studies showed that we either continued on the path and faced bankruptcy or changed policy.  I faced the constituents once more, and won even bigger - because I explained what I had done, and because I framed it within the core principles I had enunciated early on.

Finally, is it really true that "I don't know what he'll do as president and neither do you or anyone else."  On abortion, the issue is a matter for the judiciary.  John Paul Stevens is retiring.  Do you honestly not know whether Obama will select a Breyer or a Scalia?  On the death penalty, is he likely to pull a Shrub ("oooh, don't kill me"), or will he be more like Ryan?  In International Affairs, how likely is it that Obama will lead us to another ill-thought out cataclysmic war?  In dealing with allies, which is more likely to be received, and to receive, better and warmer welcome?  On the economy, which is more likely to have an elementary grasp of what the country's problems are, let alone the solutions?

To say you don't know, is to say you do not wish to know.  To demand a movement leader as a Presidential candidate in the General Election, is to doom the Party and the Movement to a loss.

You don't think much of his crowds, fine.  But they are there: which do you not like, the fact that people go to hear him, or that he likes people to go and hear him in person?  Would you object if he basked in the adulation of a simulcast to millions of homes?

I have yet to see anyone here so far gone in Obamamania as to be sinking in the Nile.  There are many sceptics, however, who risk sinking in their own bitterness.  We all have to guard against that.

July 16, 2008 10:23 PM

AlanSP said:

"Instead, he changed his poisitions (FISA, death penalty, campaign finance, abortion, education) for political advantage."

Hooray! Checklist time!

FISA: You started out with the most legitimate objection in my mind.  Civil liberties issues are very important to me, and I wish that the Dems had been able to get a compromise that was a little better.  That said, there had to be a compromise on this one for a variety of reasons, and it's not as if they just completely rolled over (which has been their general M.O. for the past 7 years).  If Obama got to write and enact laws without input from anyone else, I'm sure he'd write something very different.  But the fact is that he has 99 colleagues, 49 of whom are of the opposite party.  Compromises are a part of the job description for a senator.

Death penalty: Hasn't changed his position on this one.  His position here happens to be different from my own (I'm in favor of abolishing it), but it's no different than it was before

Campaign finance: The one clear-cut, no doubt about it, flip.  Done out of self-interest, too.  That said, I think he ended up on the right side of this one.  I think that public financing of elections is a bad idea to begin with, and its actual implementation has been nothing short of horrendous, from the absolute joke that is the primary finance system to the fact that the general election money is spread out over 3 months for the Democrat instead of 2 for the Republican.  I'd just as soon have our government use that money for something useful.

Abortion: I must have missed this one....Not being sarcastic.   I genuinely have no idea what you're talking about.

Education: Ditto.

At least you didn't list trade; my head might have exploded.

July 16, 2008 10:46 PM

jhildner said:

Wandrey:  Thanks so much.  And I you!  I guess all the f-bombs mean I won't make comment of the day, but your appreciation is better....

July 16, 2008 11:31 PM

TammyA said:

Icar.   I didn't say Obama wasn't going to restore us a a humane global citizen.  I wrote that was what I wanted in a president.  I believe he will do better with our global neigbors than McCain, but that's kinda theoretical right now.  Let us see what he does when he travels abroad.  I am nervous and excited for him at the same time.

I have never run for office, but it strikes me that Obama could have been a unique case where the movement thing and its message might have worked.  He drew in so my new voters and he had a huge share of independents supporting him.  This is addition to mobilizing some of our left-leaning groups (young, latte drinkers, and African-Americans).  If he can get high turnout there and maybe recruit one more group (women) would he have needed to tack so far right and dump the movement?  I'm concerned with the substance/issues that comprised his movement.  Not in the idea of one only.

Alan, I'm glad to can live with his FISA decision but I'm certainly not alone in being upset by it.  All the profs in my dept are and so are 30,000+ of Obama's own supporters.  He was really firm about his posiiton on telecoms in the primaries.  Can you honestly say he voted for a bill that gives them a break for anything other than to make himself look tough on nat security?  I'm not worried about what his credentials on nat security.  But Obama seems to be.  

Abortion, he said he doesn't support mental exceptions to late term abortion.  The debacle was about "feeling blue."  He claimed he didnt think depression should permit late term abortion.  Later, he clarified his remarks.  

Education issue was on vouchers, but as far as I'm concerned, he flipped in the correct direction- he's against them now.  While I'm concerned about his rhetoric, I'm reassured about his stance here.

I think there is some confusion here at TNR.  People critical of Obama are cast as McCain supporters.  Terrible dualistic thinking.  I'm done trying to make any point.  I've had anough for the day.  

July 16, 2008 11:47 PM

icarusr said:

TammyA: electoral politics are punishing.  Personally, I am happy that he is a politician, and a good one, rather than a movement leader.  

In the General Election, there will be two choices.  "Dualist thinking", at this stage of the political game, is a necessary evil.  It is absolutely essential that you, the 30,000 and anyone else who is looking for a movement leader to keep in touch with the Obama campaign and to make sure that in the necessary tacking to the Centre, your concerns are before him.  I don't think you need to worry about the core message, though.

July 17, 2008 12:16 AM

jhildner said:

icarusr:  Re beer, I said it was shitty, didn't I?  So what if it's like bottled water?  It's the awesomest bottled water ever!  I think it may even be cheaper too.

BTW, everyone should stop drinking bottled water immediately.  Seriously.  It's not better for you, it doesn't taste better, especially if it's filtered, it costs, like, 10,000 times more than tap water, it contributes to needless waste in the form of bottles not to mention the environmental impact of production and transport, it's not subject to the same health restrictions as public water, it's often sold on false claims as to its source and "purity," and you're contributing to an industry that, much like the cosmetics industry, somehow manages to thrive on suckerdom without being subject to serious scrutiny.  At least anti-wrinkle creams are the topic of an ongoing in-depth special investigation conducted by the news directors of every local network affiliate in the nation who produce regular reports, like, every Tuesday, just before the cute animal update.  Not so, bottled water.

So, join me and kick the bottled water habit!  Turn down bottled water at restaurants.  Get a Brita pitcher or similar device for the house if you're picky about the non-flavor of your water.  Or, do as I do, and just drink shitty beer instead.

And another thing!  Who do these Canadians think they are ... ?  Just kidding.

p.s.  Thanks, icarusr, for your excellent posts on this thread.

July 17, 2008 1:24 AM

GSpinks said:

Tammy,

First, I have provided proof many times in the past, especially when I felt that the information I was citing was not sufficiently disseminated by the MSM, or any major outlet. I also happily provide proof after the fact if such is requested. I also attempt to acknowledge when I am working from memory or personal impressions rather than factuals of what a candidate said. And, most importantly, I happily accept corrections and challenges in addition to welcoming legitimate debate.

Second, there are two basic scenarios when I demand proof. Either a) someone is stating "facts" with which I am not familiar, or b) I think someone is disembarking from the realm of intellectual honesty, or even just being dishonest/disingenous, and am pointing out that they're citing "facts" which don't exist. I'm pretty sure the contexts of my various requests for proof highlight which scenario I think is occurring.

Third, regarding my previous post, I have actually considered the concept of which yardstick to use, and I wanted to share my conclusions because I realized Bush fleeced America not once, but twice, and I have not decided if I'm more upset with Bush for fleecing America, or Americans for being so damn gullible. As you can see, I did not address any of the other topics largely because I have nothing new to add to the mix.

Finally, and most importantly, I'm all about honest debate; if you think I have my factoids wrong, or I am full of crap, you need to call me on it. What you shouldn't do is hold a grudge and complain about it later, especially when you've never risen to the occaision of providing proof when asked, and even more especially when you've never had a request for proof snubbed by me. I am not trying to begrudge you your intellect or your propensity for drawing your own conclusions. However, I am going to challenge your assertions and claims if I don't think they square with reality, regardless of for whom you vote, simply because accuracy and honesty if one's open and honest debates and discussions are to be beneficial to one's self or others.

July 17, 2008 2:00 AM

teplukhin2you said:

icarus - I'm not trying to "tear down Obama"; I'm simply trying, in vain it would appear, to bring this discussion back to earth. We're the reality-based party, remember? Oops, sorry, I keep forgetting: in the age of Obama we're supposed to "worship an awesome God" in the blue websites. Never mind.

You want a serious discussion-- fine, I'll try to make the case as succinctly as I can. Your argument, in essence, is that this man and his campaign represent "a phenomenon of US history, as is Mrs. Clinton, in a way that no other modern politician has managed to be - none, in fact, since Kennedy."

This is the essence of our dispute. I do not view him or his campaign as anything special. This is because, at bottom, I despise tribalism, have utterly no interest in racial politics and would very much like to see our society treat every individual in a completely race-blind way. That to my mind represents true progress, a real breakthrough, on the racial front. The fact that he has an African father means nothing to me or my vote. (Culture matters to me but race does not-- not in the slightest.)

So we start from very different perspectives. If you disregard the racial aspect of Obama's candidacy, then it's really very hard to view him as the "phenomenon" you describe. He's an intelligent young pol with a thin record, a gift for making speeches, and a habit of rather slippery evasions. Most important of all, he has the great good fortune to, again and again and again in his brief career, run against some truly spectacular flameouts: Seven of Nine's polyamorous husband. Alan F---ing Keyes. Bill Clinton, the Furious One, and his wife. And most importantly of all, he is running as the ultimate Anti-W figure: afr-amer, not white; wkg-class, not rich; ironic and smooth, not tongue-tied and fundamentalist, etc etc etc.

True, I'd rather be lucky than smart-- certainly it matters hugely in politics-- and I'll grant that Obama is smart as well as lucky. I'm also perfectly willing to admit that my view of his character may be wrong and your and hildner's view may be right-- who knows, really, until the man is actually TESTED in some crucible?-- but I will not grant that he has a spectacular record of leadership. He does not. The record simply doesn't bear that out.

Jindal has some kooky views, sure. He also, like Romney, ahs a record of leadership that-- let's be perfectly honest here, and leave aside our partisan blinders-- puts Obama's to shame. I'm sorry but someone who's mastered the intricacies of this country's health care system, both as a high flying McKinsey consultant AND the head of a state health care system before he'd reached the age of 30, is at least as smart as a Harvard Law dweeb. (Jindal was admitted to both Yale Law and Harvard Med, btw). As to Romney, he governed a large and important state, and did it well, and made a fortune in one of the toughest businesses around. Again, I'm sorry to praise the devil but I know the world Romney operated in, and success in private equity is reserved for the brightest of the bright. I'm sure he had some lucky breaks, but not enough to power 30 years' worth of achievement in this, the most cutthroat area of a cutthroat profession. Finally, Barney Frank, unlike Obama, has attained real mastery of the congressional process, plus the respect of his colleagues on both sides of the aisle, and accordingly has attained real power.

Those are major achievements. Each of these individuals has his flaws-- I grant that Jindal's religious views are dumb, and that Barney isn't glamorous, and that Romney like Obama is slick and willing to trim and pander as needed to win elections-- but the bottom line here is that if Obama were not a) afr-american, b) arriving on the scene in W's wake, and c) the beneficiary of Billary's unbelievable incompetence and own goals during the campaign, he would not be our nominee, or even discussed as a potential nominee. He'd be viewed as JFK was viewed in the early 1950s: a smooth backbencher known more for his style and bestselling books than for any real achievements as a political leader.

It's telling-- and for me and my family, bitterly disappointing-- that despite having every possible political advantage this year, Obama the Dem nominee refuses to champion universal health care, the issue of issues for any progressive domestic agenda. Both Frank and Jindal could run rings round him when it comes to health care policy. Additionally, Obama was dead wrong, and persisted in his error for months, regarding the surge in Iraq. To my mind, these shortcomings suggest that there's less to Obama than meets the eye.

I'm sorry to say these things because, as you know, I value my TNR friendships dearly and realize how grating these observations, true though they be, are to my TNR friends who see in this man the political hope of a lifetime. But he's just not such a big deal.

If I didn't value your opinion so much, I would not have replied at such length, or with such honesty.

fwiw, to paraphrase "Repo Man" I believe that only an a**hole would let a friendship get killed over an election. Obama will probably be, as JFK was, a mediocre president with lots of great speeches to his credit. I'm not sweating this election, and I'll vote for him. I just don't think he's anything special. Vastly overrated, as JFK's hagiographic reputation is.  

July 17, 2008 2:38 AM

literatehobo said:

jhildner,

I had to read your post a couple times to make sure I understood your drift, but I think we actually agree. My post was poorly constructed and lumped two different things together. I did not mean to argue that Obama himself was lecturing, more that he is lumped in with those who ARE, who certainly exist. My criticiscm of him was that by not knowing, or speaking, more about the subject, he allows that lumping to happen because he can't defend himself against it. It would be nice to hear him speak eloquently and accurately on food, nutrition, and agriculture to help dispel some of the myths on both sides, but sadly he, like almost all politicians seem to think farmers=corn+soy and food=long ingredient list. So when he DOES choose salad or organic, it comes across as trendy rather than rational. Does that make sense?

The whole reverse-food-snob dynamic you describe is quite real, and I agree with your take on it, though our personal tastes are different. I've long thought it bizarre that no one would bat an eye if my food choices were determined by religion (halal, kosher), but I'm somehow a snob for avoiding McDonalds for rational reasons. Interesting that 7th Day Adventists are good wholesome Christians, but secular vegetarians are elitist hippies. People love to buy produce from the Amish, thinking it's all clean and wholesome. Hell, the Amish I'm familiar with are the most pesticide/herbicide-heavy growers in the region.

icarusr,

No apologies needed with me for puns. I find good puns to be a form of art. Good anecdote regarding Switzerland; I've been there three times, but not long enough tor really grasp the broader-scale food culture. Though anywhere in Europe it's quite obvious the value of small bakeries and groceries in every town. One can travel unstocked in Europe in a way that's virtually impossible in the rural US.

And, yes, full support from me on the beer argument.

July 17, 2008 7:16 AM

icarusr said:

Tep:  If I understand the core of your point, it is that you think Obama is at a minimum presumotuous to be running for President, because all these other people are so much more accomplished than he is.  I wonder if you felt the same about Edwards in 2004.  If you did, at least you are being consistent - and, based on your comments on JFK, I suspect that you are being consistent.

I'll make two observations and leave it to the rest who know more about US politics to respond to.  The first is that electoral politics are chock full of bodies of worthy men who have been felled by far less worthy, accomplished or intelligent ones.  2000 and 2004, to name just two examples.  This is a fact of life.  And so to criticise Obama on the score than Barney Frank knows more about Congressional procedures is, on this score, somewhat pointless.  For one thing, Barney Frank might well know about Congress, but he still let his boyfriend run a prostitution ring out of their house (so much for judgement); for another, Barney Frank did not, could not, would not and will not run for President and get anywhere near the Democratic nomination or the White House.  Obama did.  Call it luck, call it identity politics (and I doubt that the good citizens of Iowa are into identity politics but that is a separate issue), call it whatever.  But he did it, and he did it against one of the strongest campaign machines in modern American history.  Dodd was there, and so was Biden, and both are far more experienced electorally, and neither could shake Hillary, regardless of her gaffes.  Obama exploited the rules, uncentred Hillary, drove out the rest, got the Supers on his side.  Not bad, that.  Give him his political skills - and that is not so bad in a politician hoping to win against one of the most cynical and ruthless political machines in all of American history.

The second observation is this.  You raised Jindal as someone who is a lot more intelligent than Obama and presumably as someone who is also a lot more humble.  He might well have done more than Obama in his life - I don't know.  His "kooky" religious views excludes him, for me, from consideration as a sentient being.  In fact, if he does have a science background and still believes in creationism, he needs to be flayed in public and fed to ravenous crows.  Just saying. ;-)

P.s. On one thing we agree totally.  I've argued against "Harvard Law dweebs" in court and have never found even one remotely impressive.  My favourite was one Yale-Harvard "brilliant lawyer" who, in the middle of fairly civilised and low-key negotiations, screamed out, "If you say that one more time, I'm gonna get mad."  It was not a schtick; me meant it.  We said fine; went to court and won our "best possible, though highly unlikely" outcome. :-)

July 17, 2008 10:16 AM

nikkiwhite said:

A traveling salesman knocks on the door of a farmhouse, and much to his surprise, Barack Obama answers the door. The salesman says, ‘I was expecting the farmer’s daughter.’ Barack Obama replies, ‘She’s not here. The farm was foreclosed on because of subprime loans that are making a mockery of the American dream.’

July 17, 2008 10:18 AM

jwl2672 said:

literatehobo:

The "organic" in this urban context refers to Whole Foods shoppers, chicks, and effete-men.  I'm sure organic farmers are all big and tough and all (not tougher than non-organic farmers though), but the consumers of such goods fit a particular stereotype - that of the upper middle class elitist who can afford and also cares that his food is organic.  

Whatever the hell that means anyway.  All foods are organic except salt.  They all contain the element of carbon.

July 17, 2008 11:34 AM

jwl2672 said:

icarusr  said:

JWL, you just bed over, I'll show you testosterone.  Oh wait, you're probably some fat schmuck in white socks, tennis shoes and soiled week-old Walmart briefs.  It isn't lack of testosterone; it's having taste, that is the issue.

You misread my comments; you've mistaken me for one of those gay men that I've described.  Perhaps someone like yourself would fit that category.

I could stand to lose about 8 cosmetic pounds or something I suppose.  And I did miss a gym session this week working on the "guns. "

Too much taste on ephemeral pleasures makes you a girlie man.

July 17, 2008 11:39 AM

icarusr said:

JWL: "chicks"?  I have not heard that expression used since junior high school.  Which is a good estimation of your intellectual capacity.  The question is whether you mean to be offensive, or are just stupid.

"All foods are organic except salt.  They all contain the element of carbon."

We are not talking about Organic Chemistry.  And if you don't know "what the hell that means" - and it's clear you don't - then I suggest you stop talking about it.  But then I guess this is what happens when people skip their salad and eat Prairie oysters for breakfast (for the testosterone content): you just end up speaking out of your lower sphincter.

July 17, 2008 11:59 AM

icarusr said:

"I could stand to lose about 8 cosmetic pounds or something I suppose."

In my experience, a man who knows down to the single digits how many excess "cosmetic" pounds he's got, talks about "chicks" and then goes on to protest against "girlie men" and "effete men" and absence of testosterone, needs to come out of the closet, and fast.  So much overt and narcissitic machismo is just a foil for your inner fag.  Release it and you will be far happier.

July 17, 2008 12:20 PM

jbentley4 said:

To me the ones who should be questioned about elitism are the ones with a dozen condos and the private planes.  The ones who let their children charge $50 grand a month to the family credit card and who spend $200,000 a year on hired help.  You know, the McCains.

July 17, 2008 1:01 PM

thejauntyboulevardier said:

jwl...

my advice is that when you're in a hole,stop digging. I have always enjoyed your pushing the envelope contra-liberal conservative dogma but with all this girlie men stuff and telling people to bend over, you're just acting the fool. Stick with the liberal bashing and less of the frat boy hubris...

July 17, 2008 1:22 PM

teplukhin2you said:

icarus - re. Edwards, yes, I think he was way out of his depth. I met him in the Bay Area last fall at a fund-raiser, went back and forth with him, and posted my reaction on these boards. Short of it: the man is unbearably light. Not presidential material.

I take your (well-made, as always) point about Obama's success as proof of real talent. Yes, he's talented, and the people, or our party's active people, have spoken. But I'm very concerned that he 's done a bait and switch, on many issues, on a large number of Dem activists-- even though I didn't and don't share their views on many of those issues. That troubles me, a lot.

I see your point about Jindal's religious views. The creationist stuff is appalling. I guess it's that I and my family are so desperate for some relief on the health insurance front that I'm willing to overlook the Linda Blair stuff if we can only have a political class that actually understands what a colossal mess our health insurance system is. I'm guessing Jindal knows this, but maybe I'm wrong.

Re HLS, I suppose it's a good thing I decided not to go. Then again, I'd have been a lot richer and I probably wouldn't be boring you all with my rants here....

best,

t

July 17, 2008 1:23 PM

dubyadoubte said:

What boneil  said earlier in the thread.  Maureen, you  moron

We've had the likable guy, the one who doles out  all the funny nicknames, the one with the funny "oh where are the WMD's" skit,  the guy you'd like to have a beer with in the White House for the past 7 1/2 years.  Look how well that's turned out.  I'll take serious, reality based governance, thank you.  

Come noon January 20 I know I'll be a lot less depressed, even if it's McCain taking the oath of office.

July 17, 2008 1:38 PM

literatehobo said:

JWL,

"the consumers of such goods fit a particular stereotype - that of the upper middle class elitist who can afford and also cares that his food is organic. "

On what are you basing that stereotype? Please explain. What research have you done, what background do you have, that allows you to claim that with any level of confidence? Now, I am quite willing to agree that many upper middle class elitists buy organic food. What I am not willing to agree is that ONLY they do,  that the market for organic foods consists solely of those types, and that choosing such products is solely a function of elitist showiness as you seem to imply.

My farmers market accepts EBT (food stamp) cards, as do many others around Missouri and the country. The (organic in all but certification) farm in Virginia where I got my start, before moving to Missouri to found my own place, had market customers ranging from poor black women to NPR hosts. If you're in the DC area, go visit the Takoma Park market to get a real sense of the diversity of organic/sustainable food consumption.

"Whatever the hell that means anyway. "

Are you ser