So, apparently today is "Hubris Day" at TNR (see Jamie K's Plank post above).  I imagine "Funny Hats Day" and "Counterintuition Day" just got old after a while?

Obama's new campaign slogan should be: "Damned if you do, damned if you don't".  Seriously, the handwringing this guy inspires in the media is just breathtaking.  And the next one of you who wonders why the polls are close only need look at your recent reporting....

True, the crowd was well-managed, well-scrubbed, well-behaved. A point for Obama.

But the speech itself was about as bland and weak as anything we've heard in the campaign. Next to JFK's and Reagan's speeches, it's hugely underwhelming, sort of like shifting from Aaron Copland to Whitney singing "I Believe the Children are the Future."

Obama is clearly trying to play it as safe as he possibly can, and avoiding any rhetorical high points or sharp edges or pithy formulations of a policy vision.

You could tell the speech was deliberately pouring water on everyone's expectations when he started with his tried and true tearjerker ploy on his favorite subject, himself. If the Lifestory candidate were trying to make himself and his words look trivial next to those historic turning points that JFK and Reagan's speeches memorialized for the history books, he couldn't have done a better job than to yet again milk his Lifestory and pause to remember dear old absent Dad. (Imagine JFK talking about Honey Fitz, or Reagan talking about his father.)  

Having gotten off to a limping start, the speech then shifts gear into a trot. Bland milquetoast about the airlift. Again, no memorable or stirring lines, rather leaden prose and a hamhanded repetition of "Look at Berlin..." that creates an unflattering comparison to JFK's memorable "Let them come to Berlin" line.

Then the speech gets weird and clumsy. Obama tries to yoke together those completely unrelated issues of terrorism (uh-oh, we Europeans don't want to hear about this) and global warming (ah, that's better! He's one of US!).

By this point the audience must be wondering, what's going on?  To Americans who recall the Clinton/Dick Morris era, it's obvious: Obama is trying to triangulate the Atlantic. Next follows a series of bland and deflating Dick Morris-style both-sides-are-missing-it little formulations, unintentionally made absurd by Obama's bizarre rhetorical image of a "wall" between the US and the European allies.

At this point, I checked out. Who crafted this idiotic analogy? If Obama did, then it suggests real unseriousness. The Berlin Wall was an act of violence perpetrated by a vicious and incompetent state against its own people. To compare it to the divide between the US and Europe today is to trivialize history.

This was a play it safe speech that, by avoiding making mistakes, underscored Obama's lack of real depth. He chose a grand stage, and delivered a Rotary Club speech.

"Hubristic"? Addressing yourself to the people of the world sounds a lot less hubristic than turning your backs on them.

I don't care much for "This is our time."

The Germans, as indeed all Europeans, are tired of the Iran issue, mainly because of the way Bush has handled all other issues.  Boy.  Wolf.  Iraq.  It does not help that McCain chants "bomb bomb bomb Iran", that Bolton has only one operative verb in his vocabulary "bomb", and that an Israeli prime minister mired in scandal and not yet recovered from an ill-advised war sends out warplanes across the Mediterranean to spook Iran (nevermind the different topography).  To bring the Europeans on board on this issue, you need more than soaring speech.

Tep: you're the one who's concerned about his electability; you do not make yourself electable by making grand gestures, but by appealing to the common denominator, and hoping it is not the lowest.

"Imagine JFK talking about Honey Fitz, or Reagan talking about his father."  Imagine Obama fucking Angelina or calling China the Evil Empire.  We live in a different age; it is a personal age.  For fuck's sake, Tep, you had a Presidential candidate who talked about underwear he wore and then had to talk about inserting a cigar tube in an Intern in the oval office UNDER OATH.  We live in a different age, and so speeches have to be calibrated to a different age.

"Who crafted this idiotic analogy?" Some 80% of Western Europe considers the United States a bigger threat to world peace than it does Iran.  Reflect on that a little, and then tell me if this is not a "wall".  A "wall" does not alway refer to "The" Wall.  When the President of Iran talked about a "wall of mistrust" between the US and Iran, he was referring to 50 years of history and not analogising to the Separation Wall of Israel.  His juxtaposition of the two walls is not mean to analogise one to the other, but use a common rhetorical/poetic device, indeed, of "juxtaposition": just as one would, for example, use the "tree of knowledge" and "a family tree" - the one not be analogous to but evocative of the other.

There are parts of the speech I did not like - "This is our time" is plain silly - but you are just sounding cranky right.  Or like a crank. (A propos juxtaposition ;-).)

tep, buddy, I really like you.  I think you're a keen guy.  I have enjoyed years of TNR-related back-and-forth with you.  But it's getting to the point where Obama could cure a troop of lepers with his tears and you would declare that it merely reinforces the impression that he's an elitist.  It makes your thinking about him seem... shall we say, less than nuanced?

Great moments from a great speech by a great man.

"I also know how much I love America."

OK, I won't giggle. But I'll bet euros to jellyrolls that millions of europeans raised their eyebrows at that one.

In the wake of soaring Periclean rhetoric delivered by serious American presidents at critical moments in the history of the West, Young Obama comes to Berlin and talks about his dad, and his awareness of his own love for America.

Welcome, European friends, to the Great American Political Bullsh*t Fest. Brought to you by the past master of the art.

"Also, the crowd response was slightly less frenzied than I'd expected; on TV, at least, the cheering seemed hearty--but not full-out Beatlemania. (The applause was especially wan, for instance, when Obama cited the need to stop Iran from acquiring nukes.)"

What...you mean Obama said something his audience didn't want to hear?  What happened to the raving panderer we've all come to know and love?  How dare that arrogant junior senator speak an unpopular truth.  

Sorry Danny, but I just find this guy's bullsh*t impossible to swallow anymore.

C'mon, get real. He insisted on singing at La Scala, and chose for his grand aria a Celine Dion ballad.

tep, you've spent the last six months pounding Obama precisely on the grounds that his rhetoric is so soaring that he can't possibly live up to it. Now, he delivers a normal political speech with basically pedestrian content and style, and you pound Obama for failing to deliver a Periclean address that reshapes the human race's understanding of the world?

Your standing line of attack on Obama is silly and counterfactual. But at least it makes sense within a certain logical framework. Today's criticism shatters that frame; no rational person can possibly believe both your prior criticism of Obama and your current criticism of today's address at the same time.

For some reason, Obama rubs you the wrong way. We all get that. But please, stop insulting us -- stop insulting yourself! -- by pretending to justify your aversion to the man. You're allowed to just not like him because you don't like him. That kind of personal affinity or aversion does not require objective proof. (For example, my congressman does a competent job working for the issues I care about. And I don't like him one bit. He's a living embodiment of the stereotype of the Irish machine pol, which as an Irish-American bugs me to no end, and he's a drunk and despite my better intentions I look down on people who can't hold their liquor. I don't waste anybody's time pretending that my dislike for the man is based on any objective analysis of his work or campaign style.)

"I also know how much I love America."

Real BS, this.  I've certainly never heard it before, uttered by an American, or an American politician.  If he meant it, he is a past master of BS because he is uttering cliches; if he did not mean it, he is a past master of BS because he is a past master of BS.  Repeat after me: Past. Master. BS. BS.  Past.  BS.  Master.  

Teppy, hate to say it, but it takes one to REALLY know one.

"Young Obama" ... I see a reverse Oedipal Reflex deep in operation here. (In Persian mythology, it is called the "Rustam" complex: the deep desire of a father to kill the son who, he thinks, threatens to displace him, even as the son offers the dad the mastery of the world.  Like the Oedipal Reflex, it relies on ignorace to function; but also on deep deception on the part of the Father.)  The more you harp on his age, the more I suspect there is something deeper than UHC operating here.

tep, for the life of me I don't know what the source of your animus is.  For serious.  You were expecting... what?  It was an anodyne speech.  I don't know that I follow your "Berlin is La Scala" metaphor.

Are you getting this exercised over things like, say, John McCain's concern about a non-existent Iraq/Pakistan border?

the question, dr. dan, is when did tep jump the shark?

perkowitz: See the other Berlin thread, where Tep says, ""Some one really needs to check this man's narcissism."  Because of two paragraphs Obama said about himself and his American-Kenyan background.  This is the Fonz jumping the shark, swimming with platypus and playing footsie with polar bears all rolled into one.

I especially loved how Berlin was black-and-white until Obama took the stage, and then the scene became vivid color. Also, the bits where Peter Falk and Lou Reed made cameo appearances as themselves. Brilliant staging!

tep, on the other berlin speech thread I responded to your criticism of it as Celine Dion at La Scala.

In short, my point was: I hope to G-d he is shooting for Celine Dion as opposed to opera, 'cause opera doesn't sell. And if he did try for opera, you'd just criticize him for being too elite.

Wouldn't you?

Yeah, since this is not JFK's "Ich bin ein Berliner" type speech it is a failure, meanwhile McCain can't fill up a VFW hall. And Obama ain't no Celine Dion, he is more like Bruce Springsteen, not every song or performance of his is a Masterpiece. McCain is more like Alvin and the Chipmunks (I tihk he is about the same size as Alvin, isn't he?)

it just occurred to me: Tep's enjoying controlling all of us, 'cause these threads have become all about him (her?).

It was a well written speech and well delivered.  Most American could not argue with most of the main sentiments.

Where I think he made a mistake was declaring so unquestioningly that all the ice is melting because of human activity.  Many believe this, but it has hardly been proven.

He could have made a good statement about the world working together to protect the environment without invoking something that is still quite arguable.

Every thread is becoming hijacked by your endless, grinding self absorption Tep, you either need meds or a brown-out that will take out your computer for awhile or both.

scire - agreed, the real narcissist is you know who.  No wonder he goes off on the concept - he's personifiying it.

It's official. There's no way Obama can please Tep.

rhube- his rhetoric was never "soaring". It's always been ludicrous. "We are the change we have been seeking."

In Berlin, our new Pericles compared the transatlantic spat to the Soviets' Wall, talked about dear ol' dad, and uttered this lapidary phrase: "I also know that I love America."

ick, dan - OK, OK, I'm making yet another COBRA payment for my family, in an amount which exceeds the disposable income of the average blue-collar American family, and will have to continue doing so until I get funding for my startup. So I have a taste of what LUCKY Americans can look forward to should they lose a job where the employer actually provided decent health insurance, ie, it sucks. It's not affordable.

Again, this is the best case under our insane  employer-linked system. And our party's candidate wants to continue letting employers drive this system because...? I don't get it. How is continuing with this idiotic employer-based kloodge of a non-system progressive? It's bad for (my fledgling) business, bad for (my) family, bad for (my) country's competitiveness. Why did we nominate a guy whose plan continues this silliness?

He also opposes school vouchers. And drilling for more oil. I know it warms the hearts of urban hipsters and single folks to sock it to the suburban family non-hipsters, but these are some of the core concerns of working families. Obama's agenda does nothing for them.

Oh, not that it matters, but my own personal situation puts me and my family in the worst of all possible worlds should this pseudo-progressive win. I don't get UHC or vouchers, AND my taxes will likely go up under Obama. While my health care bills exceed $20,000 per year. And private school tuition is in the $20,000 per child range.

Well, that's my personal stake in this. I also happen to think that Obama's particular mastery of bait and switch, of rhetorical vapor and media manipulation, his all-things-to-all-men weaseling, not only doesn't signify "reform", it's a step backward for our politics.

Ha ha, scire. I'll put good money on the proposition, increasingly suggested by the polling data, that more and more Americans will in due course come to see this man as a slippery BS artist.

But hey, maybe you're right. Rock on.

Although as I sated, I think the speech was both well written and well delivered Tep's point is hardly over the top.  

That point being that in comparison to the predecessor speeches with which this will inevitably be compared-- Kennedy's & Regan's -- Obama's oratory was moving in its sentiments about the American ideal and the bonds with Europe-- but it was not very heroic.

Which from an historic perspective is perfectly predictable.  The Democrats have cringed at heroism ever since the death of Jack Kennedy and our failure in Viet Nam.  Which Democrats attach directly to what they consider overpromises and overcommitments of Jack Kennedy.  (Pay any price, bear any burden).

I'll have to re-read it, but what the next president certainly is going to have to do is challenge Europe to carry its weight in the Middle East.  At least in Afghanistan where they nominally agree the fight ought to be.

It is pitiful how much of the sacrifice Europe leaves to American in Afghanistan-- both in blood and treasure.  Being how shamefully little Europe does in Afghanistan, they have no moral standing to criticize us in Iraq.

So, riddle me this, tep.  Obama wants to make public insurance available to those who opt out of employer-based health care, yes?  Have I missed something, or gotta his policy wrong?  (I ask sincerely; please let me know if I have misunderstood.)  So... how does that not address your situation?  How is that not worlds better than the non-existent McCain health care plan?

I understand your disagreement with him about vouchers, though I do not share it.  And offshore drilling will make a minute difference in America's energy needs if we go nothing about the demand side.  So, this is what animates your scorn?  Seriously?  Does this not seem a wee bit detached from reality?  You don't seriously think that McCain would be worse?

Help me understand.

Tep, I gotta admire this one of yours:  " He chose a grand stage, and delivered a Rotary Club speech."

In light of your detailed critique, I will reread the speech and see if I share more of your disdain.

Still, I'm certain the overall effect of the speech will have been good and it will be deemed successful by most, who will not be as Jesuistic in their rigor.

OUGHT TO HAVE READ:  Given how shamefully little Europe does in Afghanistan, they have no moral standing to criticize us in Iraq

Tep: well, at least we know whence the animus.  He ain't doing enough for you.  That's fair.  McCain, no doubt, will relieve your tax burden, reduce your health care costs, ensure vouchers are provided, heal the sick and raise the dead.

Throughout the Primaries you complained about lack of specifics; after the primaries, you complained about his rhetoric; now you complain about his bait and switch.  On UHC he has been fairly consistent; on the voucher issue, he has apparently switched, but you know and I know that not too many people voted for him soley because of that.

Good luck on the start-up by the way.  My personal recommendation: move to Canada.  Health care is excellent and paid for; taxes are higher, but the schools are better and you won't need to pay $20,000 for private schooling.  And we can always use more enterpreneurs, even cantankerous once like you :-).

micelf - who effing CARES?

Tep: incidentally, my dad, an old reliable tax-and-spend social democrat, turns into a raving right-wing tax-cutting damn-the-poor-and-end-welfare lunatic four times a year.  What we don't understand is why these episodes come around the dates of his quarterly business tax cheques to the Federal and Provincial revenue authorities, when he needs the most concentration and the least distraction ....

Channy, JFK made his speech in the face of the building of the wall, Reagan made his at the time there was a Soviet leader who was willing to let the wall be torn down. How the hell can Obama possibly match those two events in a speech in Berlin now? If JFK never made that speech his saying "Ich bin ein Berliner" would be a nice sentiment but meaningless, and of course "tear down this wall." is meaningless since the wall is already torn down. People want Obama to make every speech a Gettysburg address without the battle of Gattysburg as prelude.

Tep, get used to it, Clinton was a slippery BS artist too, that didn't make him a bad President, and if he kept it in his pants we would be in a hell of a lot better position as now. And you are dead wrong about Obama's health care position. You are living in a fantasy world if you think UHC will be passed without some interim. But for you it is either total UHC or grampa McCain and his worst of all possible worlds health care system.

drdanny, we have a ton of offshore drilling, Tep and Republicans choose to ignore it is not drilling but refining capacity that is the issue (and of course there are also not enough big rigs or oil drill workers to meet demand, but hey who the hell cares about facts, when know nothing people can just say DRILL and expect magic to happen)

I essentially work for Pemex in that the University I teach is the feeder school for Pemex, we are the school that provides the Chemical and Petroleum engineers for this region. Mexico sends a pretty large amount of crude to the US to be refined because they don't have enough refineries, they have been sending a great deal to the states lately. Chincotepec is past peek but there are other sites within the gulf that hold huge reserves, yet Mexico is not drilling there yet because the demand for the crude doesn't exist. They are setting aside money to go there but that won't be for a while yet.

Everyone who says drill, drill, drill has their head up their asses. Show me where it will be refined, show me where the big rigs will come from, and show me who will work the platforms and then we can discuss opening up the fields. Stop pretending we can drill on Miami beach.

tep: Like somebody else on here said, I understand you not liking the guy,but based on all you said about your situation, how is McCain gonna benefit you more? You gotta know by now,no candidate is perfect. You never get 100% return on all your issues. And clearly healthcare ranks high for you. Can you please tell me how Obama's ideas on healthcare are worse than McCain's?

And the more I see McCain, the more i see him as totally inept. He cares about one thing and one thing only. And he seems increasingly, i dunno, mentally inflexible. Obama has a flexible mind. In my experience, that's a very valuable asset in a leader.

McCain seems a far scarier proposition to me than somebody's who's got a large ego and who sometimes overreaches in his determination not to lose.

And as a single parent of three, with two in college, I struggle financially as well. I'd place my bets on Obama over McCain any day.

Healthy skepticism is good. BUt why the anger?

Blackie, I think there is a better chance for Muslim fanaticism to bring us down than there was for Soviet dominance Eastern Europe to do same.

Thjis because the Soviets were a conventional state that could be contained by conventional military might and because they were materialists who feared death.  M.A.D. works with such types.

Eliminating the chance of untraceable nuclear terrorism is going to be very difficult.

blackie writes, "...People want Obama to make every speech a Gettysburg address without the battle of Gattysburg as prelude."

That's a bit disingenuous under the circumstances, blackie.  It was Obama who chose a venue so redolent of heroism, history and tragedy.  Of course expectations were high.

Hey Tep, you call for a refinery to be built in your neighborhood and then we can talk.

And for the love of God, if you want to vote for McCain vote for McCain, but do everyone a favor and make the case for McCain instead of railing against your vision of a one candidate race.

channy, your fear will only increase because technology will only improve, some Moslem biochemist can bioengineer a new virus in 20 years, but what can we do? outlaw chemistry and physics in the Middle east? Your argument is why I have pushed for alternative forms of energy regardless of the initial costs, if money ain't going to the Middle east than the necessary infrastructure to build these WMD's will not be there, not enough to wipe us out in any event. It has been asshole Bush who has made these Sheiks richer than even they imagined.

By the way, have you noticed even the lowly Mexican peso has now topped 10 to the dollar? It is scary how Bush drove the dollar down the toilet.

And I am sorry, but Berlin is the Capital of Germany, it is not a Goddamn symbol. Where was he supposed to go, Dusseldorf? Obama chose not to make the speech in front of the Brandenburg gate for that precise reason, but now it is all of Berlin, next it will be all of Germany, then Europe, then the US. How dare Obama talk in Dayton, Ohio, what is the symbolism of that?

The thing that bugs Republicans is that McCain can't make a speech anywhere that will draw a crowd bigger than one necessary to fill a VFW hall.

tep...

I know you and like you. We have shared bread together and for the life of me, I really really can't figure out the basis for your Obama animus. I can certainly see why someone would have preferred Clinton in the primary but the issues that you raise in your post will hardly be better addressed with a McCain presidency. Perhaps not even in a Obama presidency either but if my North Star was health coverage, I throw my lot in with Obama over McCain anyday.

Was it DrDan who painted that fabulous scenario that Obama's tears could cure a colony of lepers and from you we would be elitism and hubris?  You appear to hold Obama to an very odd, totally subjective, hilariously impossible standard and everyone else gets the benefit of the doubt. I compell you to read your own posts and try to see what we see: anger, some resentment, and a near demonic animus against the candidate. You say BS and slippery?  Really, it that what it really is? Because if it is, then you must be one continuously angry dude because politicians, by definition, are all slippery and BS spewing bastards.  

What is it that drives you to such levels of Obama disdain?  Look into your heart - I know you have one - and try to make sense of what you have been so aggressively putting out here at Talkback. It is hard to reconcile these posts with the man that I know.

blackie writes, "And I am sorry, but Berlin is the Capital of Germany, it is not a Goddamn symbol. "

I'm sorry, blackie, but the history of 1870 to 1989 says that Berlin is a powerful and very volatile symbol, indeed, in the Western imagination.  

Two watershed speeches by Kennedy and Reagan make the history of speeches by American presidents and emotional touchpoint with all Americans.

So, when a candidate for president goes to Berlin and makes a major speech outdoors to thousands of Berliners, this is not the moral equivalent of an appearance in Dayton.  

I can't, for that matter, think of a precedent for a mere candidate presuming to do such a thing in such a place.  Obama was setting himself up.  I think he mainly got away with it.  But, you can't pretend it wasn't pretty damn cheeky.

Further, it has not been the custom of American presidential candidates

While Noam and Mike have been debating the significance of Obama's Berlin speech today over at The

blackie writes, "The thing that bugs Republicans is that McCain can't make a speech anywhere that will draw a crowd bigger than one necessary to fill a VFW hall."

McCain holds his own fine in a less formal speaking situation.  He is not a soaring orator.  Nor were Truman or Eisenhower.

Any objective observer will easily offer that Barack Obama is an extraordinarily talented speech maker.  the question is, if this talent wins him the presidency, how will he wield the power he will win?

I believe there is a great danger that he would use that power in a way that will be very bad for the country.  

You who believe otherwise are understandably happy that he has such rhetorical talent.  If I believed in the man and agreed with him philosophically, I'd be thrilled with his talent as well.

I freely admit that I am made very uneasy by such talent in the hands of a man I find potentially dangerous to American interests.

There have been many charismatic politicians who won the adolation of millions.  And brought great destruction on their own people and many others.  

As Europeans and South Americans well know.

O'Channy...

Are you comparing Obama to olkfs like Hitler, Mussolini, and Peron? Really?  Is this the next drop in the ever lowering GOP basement floor of desperation...

I am beginning to the think Obama is driving you and teppy completely bonkers...

Psst, Mike, "people of the world" is the phrase used by JFK in his inauguration speech.  I don't recall reading about people criticizing JFK for being "hubristic-sounding" in his inauguration speech.  

Oh for Pete's sake, if Obama had made the best speech of  his career, Obamaphobes would be saying he's trying to ape Reagan and Kennedy before he's even president.  "What unbelievable arrogance!"

It took me a long time to really warm to Obama.  He's got some serious flaws as a candidate (lack of national experience, first and foremost) but the low quality of his critics makes him look better and better.  Witness ChanRobt's "He makes great speeches!  Know who else did?  HITLER AND HUGO CHAVEZ!" line of attack at 12:06 AM.  Obama as Hitler, what a thoughtful line of attack.  Let's hope the McCain camp is smoking the same thing.

"He could have made a good statement about the world working together to protect the environment without invoking something that is still quite arguable"

Agreed, but that seems to have become the Seal of Global Warming. I'm kinda thinking the solar flare cycle theory is holding more water every year myself. Regardless, we're gonna have to do something about eroding coastlines.

"... a man I find potentially dangerous to American interests."

I think this really depends on which interests you have in mind...if indeed you are drawing a parallel with Stalin or Hitler, I find your suspicions contemptuous. Other than that, I have no doubts that certain interests will find themselves persona non grata during an Obama administration; but I have no problems with this because, while Reagan managed to provide for Corporations AND workers, Bush seems to have forgotten that normal Americans have to actually have jobs in order to get by.

hewstino, jaunty:  We've got a young man here who nobody yet really and truly knows.  He is a very talented orator.  

He also has a record in terms of voting and of his associates who give a lot of people well to the Left of me pause.

That he can give a beautiful and moving speech and get large stadiums cheering does not mean ipso facto that he is a man whose policies all of us would like to see implemented.

I didn't say he was Hitler or Hugo Chavez.  I saw, we don't know for sure who he is.  And some of us are not left with a very good feeling by the things-- outside of his charm and talent-- that we do know.

All through history, wise people have known to fear a man who can move a crowd.  Maybe he will move millions to good.  By my lights, he seeks to move millions to do things that I don't think are good.

In Reagan's day, the Left and Democrats feared and despised Ronald Reagan because he could move millions to do things THEY didn't think was good.

It is not unwise to worry about the least know presidential candidate since 1945 very possibly soon being in a position to make very unfortunate things happen.  I'm not talking about evil things.  I'm talking about unwise or wrong policies.

Which can, of course, have evil effect.

Tep - this isn't even about Obama anymore, it hasn't been for awhile - its about crapping all over people to try and make them feel bad and bully every post into being about this need.  Its sick.

Channy, um 1989 was 19 years ago, the Berlin wall fell, now it is the Capital of a united Germany and one of the major cities of Europe. I grant you the Brandenburg gate is fraught with symbolism, but when Capitals of major powers becomes verboten, then you are moving towards unreasonable censorship. Berlin is the Capital and the most populated city, it is right for him to go there. I suppose London is unacceptable because of the blitz, and Prague and Warsaw and Paris, candidates should only go to rural villages to meet foreign heads of state from now on lest they look like candidates, right?

And this notion that Obama is dangerous, how about some policies of his that are manifestly dangerous, and not some amorphous, Democrats are weak on National security horseshit, Bush has done far more harm to the US than any Democrat has ever done. Donald Rumsfeld is in effect, if not intent, virtually a traitor to the United States and its constitution. If it wasn't for Dems winning in 2006 forcing Bush to change policy, then Iraq would probably be well and truly lost by now.

jaunty on tep:

"You appear to hold Obama to an very odd, totally subjective, hilariously impossible standard and everyone else gets the benefit of the doubt."

In tep's defense, he seems to hold virtually *everyone* to an idiosyncratic, impossible standard.  The list of politicians that he speaks of approvingly is rather short: Joe Biden, Bobby Jindal, Ken Salazar, Barney Frank, and occasionally Mitt Romney (mainly with regard to the technocrat aspect).  Still trying to find a common thread there (the one that always throws me off is Salazar).  Anyway, there hasn't been a Presidential candidate that he's approved of in 6 months or so, which I imagine must get a little frustrating.

I'm going to violate a personal TNR rule and weigh in on this.

I have deliberately stayed out of the political discussions on TNR, because (a) I don't feel that I have the standing to make uniquely valuable comments for the most part, and (b) I don't believe in commenting on threads I can't follow up on. As an active farmer, I do not have the office job that allows me to keep up with threads, especially during the summer. So I lurk and skim every few days when I get a chance, early morning, lunchtime, late evening.

However, I feel the need to comment now, as I happen to feel much the same as Tep, and see the growing anti-Tep pileon as getting out of hand. Even now, I do not have the time to craft a fully thorough statement, so please bear with me.

I, too, do not particularly like or trust Obama. I do not find him inspiring. My wife and I went to see him speak in Kansas City way back in February or March, and came away bitterly disappointed. What we heard was soaring speech composed of blatant platitudes. The partisan Democratic crowd ate the tender red meat from his hand, and we were left standing at the back thinking "that's all?". He said nothing new, nothing of interest, nothing that demonstrated an actual ability to analyze. He played heavily on his race while pretending to be above identity politics. He effusively praised the patriotically offensive, painfully off-key massacring of the National Anthem by a 4-year-old munchkin, which told me all I needed to know about his honesty and "different politics". An honest politician could simply have thanked the girl for her courage and effort in singing, while not addressing the question of quality. Perhaps you'll think me obsessive, but it is these little details that tell you who a person is. That told me he is a politician, though claiming not to be one. As Tep has argued, there is nothing wrong with a poltician per se, but there is with one who wrongly claims not to be. My B.S. meter is set pretty low, and it was gonging within the opening minutes.

Rhetoric and speaking skills mean very little to me. Detailed policy papers online mean very little to me; anyone can hire experts to write nice essays on policy. I don't care one whit that he can inspire people; the question is, as Chan has accurately pointed out, is inspire to what end? That doesn't mean he's a dictator; it means he's a leader who may or may not be right. Bush, in his own way, inspired a lot of Americans to follow a very wrong path.

We were traditional liberals who have been steadily moving center over the last few years. I was exceedingly happy that McCain won the primary, only to be disappointed in his campaign as well. This election is becoming a none-of-the-above for me. In response to the challenge given Tep, and by proxy to me, I don't know exactly what Obama should do to convince me. Perhaps he should match his actions to his words by agreeing to regular town-hall formats with McCain, sticking to public financing, taking the time to learn more about issues such as agriculture without sticking to vague platitudes that farmers on all parts of the spectrum recognize as ignorant city-person B.S.

Tep has been roundly booed and lampooned for consistently stating that the emporer has no clothes. Personally, I find Obama to at least be down to his underwear after the nice, shiny suit he started out with. He is inspiring because of his identity and his words; his actions and his policies are sheer boilerplate. The former are fairly meaningless to me; the latter are important, and his balance between the two leaves much to be lacking.

That is all I have time to write. I will attempt to check this several times tomorrow while I am packing my produce for market; having stuck my foot in, I intend to at least swim for a bit.

"Bush has done far more harm to the US than any Democrat has ever done."

You could make an argument for James Buchanan.

AlanSp, I would say touche but at this point I think I give the edge to Bush. Buchanan was just a bumbler, you can't blame it all on him. If the Dems didn't split their vote (Dixiecrats) who the hell knows what would have happened.

hobo, you could say the same things about Bill Clinton "I feel your pain." really, wtf is that? Bill Clinton inspired people and in the end it was for good ends if you believe in his results.

You were bitterly disappointed by a political speech? Really? Where comes the appointment from? Did you really think the cloud would part and angelic choirs would sing (to paraphrase Hillary). If Obama is as good as Bill was (while keeping it in his pants) then I will be more than happy. I never thought Bill Clinton was the Messiah nor did I mock people who found him inspiring. I thought he was a great speaker who had great political instincts (and great policies).

Read about Obama's political agenda. He will have a Dem Congress. I see nothing whatsoever to fear from his agenda.

literatehobo said: "He effusively praised the patriotically offensive, painfully off-key massacring of the National Anthem by a 4-year-old munchkin, which told me all I needed to know about his honesty and "different politics". An honest politician could simply have thanked the girl for her courage and effort in singing, while not addressing the question of quality. Perhaps you'll think me obsessive, but it is these little details that tell you who a person is."

I would not use the word obsessive, but thinking a politician lacks courage because he compliments a little girl on her rendition of the national anthem is, forgive  me, a little nuts.  And it says nothing about who "a person is".  This is the worst example of the quasi-mystical definition of "character"  that has come to make our presidential elections so depressing lately.

Look I honestly can't deny you a right to Obama skepticism, as  I can't deny tep his, but it is criticisms  such as this, and now some of the weird  stuff  I've seen thrown at BHO after his Berlin speech, that  don't impress me.  You've made clear that policy is  not what you're interested in so.... what is it?  You don't even care about a candidate's stated policies, literatehobo?  Tep is fairly monomaniacal in his disdain for Obama, but it at least SOME of  it is based  on substantive disagreements with Obama on what he says he wants  to do.

Berlin was a bad choice for an aspiring Messiah.

It was the capital for a very sinister empire.

The Obama path from the Wailing Wall to Berlin is a little tasteless.

But this tasteless and accidental presidential candidate  may feel some admiration for the best campaigner of history, who died close to the scene of his speech.

I love you guys. Really.

Stay the way you are. (Yes, that means you, Jill.)

Having woken up to check on the latest round of obsessive rainfall that is currently inundating northern Missouri (6-8" in the last 24 hours), I might as well try to respond while envisioning my produce underwater.

blackton,

"Bill Clinton inspired people and in the end it was for good ends if you believe in his results."

I'm 28 and first really paid attention to politics in Bush/Gore 2000, so I can't honestly make comparisons to Clinton. I seem to recall that many folks felt Reagan was inspirational, and many people believed in his results. The question, as Chan accurately notes, was whether the policies  and results are good.

"You were bitterly disappointed by a political speech? Really?"

Yep. When I travel to hear a speech by someone hailed as the next great orator and leader of our time, I expect to like the speech, not be alternately amused, disgusted, and bored by it. We did not go in cynical, or intended to feel that way. We went in interested and curious, and left as I've described it. Perhaps I'm a scrooge. It was my first live political candidate speech. Chalk it up to innocence if you like, but I didn't find sugercoated boilerplate any tastier than regular boilerplate, and boilerplate it was.

hewstino,

"I would not use the word obsessive, but thinking a politician lacks courage because he compliments a little girl on her rendition of the national anthem is, forgive  me, a little nuts.  And it says nothing about who "a person is".  This is the worst example of the quasi-mystical definition of "character"  that has come to make our presidential elections so depressing lately."

I'll grant that "courage" was a poor word. I'll stand by my argument, however, that a person can in part be judged on how they handle the little things. I don't see Obama doing anything different from anyone else running for office, except for claiming that he IS different. The fact that he isn't lowers my estimation of him in a way that it wouldn't for someone who wasn't pretending to be otherwise. Also, please note that I told that anecdote to help explain my initial reaction to the man; I should not have said "told me all I needed to know", or at least that should not have been taken literally. My intention is not to lay out a new form of have-a-beer politics; it's to point out that Obama has come across to me as a slick young speaker who thinks he can enact standard Democratic policies, and I don't see any really compelling evidence that he's the one to do it over all the other more experienced, more qualified, more respected alternatives with similar platforms.

"You've made clear that policy is  not what you're interested in so.... what is it?  You don't even care about a candidate's stated policies, literatehobo?"

You have it exactly backwards, and perhaps that's due to sloppy prose on my part. I care very much about policy; what I see in Obama is standard Democratic policies that any centrist Democrat would run on. I don't see much different, unique, or memorable; I don't see why they're HIS policies rather than the general party's policies that he's decided to sell. There's a difference between proposed policy, and the candidate's understanding of it and ability to achieve it. I didn't say I didn't care about policy, I said that the existence of a policy paper on a website doesn't tell me much about a candidate himself other than his general preferences. Yes, it helps me distinguish him from McCain. No, it doesn't  make me think any more highly of him than any other centrist Democrat espousing the same positions.

If the strongest argument for Obama is that he's a better salesperson of the Democratic agenda than anyone else, that's fair, but that doesn't tell me anything about his understanding of what he's selling. A vote for President is a vote for someone who will lead ALL of us; I don't see it as a partisan cheerleader position. The fact that in months of primary campaigning, he (and Clinton) was unable or unwilling to distinguish himself from his opponent through unique, memorable, challenging policy proposals steadily lowered my opinion of him. This was also true for Clinton; Wandrey may remember my annoyance at Clinton's unwillingness to run on her ag record in the Midwest. This was his best chance to demonstrate his policy chops, and instead he stuck to standard Democratic fare and fought the battle on grounds of personality (again, also true for Clinton).

I am still a Democrat, though trending center lately, and am far more likely to vote for Obama than McCain (due, in no small part, to McCain's own campaigning that's put me off). But I see Obama as a salesman, with both the positive and negative connotations of that imagery, and that's a strong contrast to the wonk that I'd be truly interested in (Gore, Biden). Perhaps, in our political system, it's more important to be able to sell something than to understand it. But I don't find that inspiring. My vivid memories are of 2000, when a slick salesperson beat a demonstrated wonk. Just because Obama is espousing party planks closer to my views than Bush did in 2000 doesn't mean I automatically believe in him. The wrong person can espouse the right views, and vice versa. 2000 was easy, as Gore clearly knew what he was talking about AND I agreed with him on most things. 2008 isn't so clear-cut.

My vote in November will be for a generic centrist D agenda over an increasingly right-wing R agenda, with breath held that he and the Congress will act sensibly and not swing as far to the left as Bush did to the right. If McCain wins, he will act as a check against the worst tendencies of a strong D Congress, and I'm comfortable with that too.

Given that it's 2:00am and I'm distracted by flooding streams and crops, this may still not be the best representation of my views. But I have a narrow window to participate in this discussion, so there it is.

Alan - The list of politicians that he speaks of approvingly is rather short: Joe Biden, Bobby Jindal, Ken Salazar, Barney Frank, and occasionally Mitt Romney (mainly with regard to the technocrat aspect)"

Well, you're hip to my tricks, though you omitted the man who tops them all, Bobby K, though Romney isn't on my list. I'm just glad to see someone in our political class who actually understands finance firms and markets. He's kind of a weenie, to be honest, like every other Bainie I've known, my dear sister excepted, of course. You could add ol' Daniel Pat Moynihan to the list as well, and maybe Rahm Emanuel, when he's not soliciting hedge-funder money.

The thread linking them all, and the one that's missing in BHO's case, is that each of these characters refuses to pander to or preen for the hipsters. They reject "cool." (JFK was cool; RFK seethed.) They are / were totally  focused on the needs of ordinary working families, and they will use their large brains to pursue truth, as they see it, and then fearlessly tell it.

Which yields Daniel Pat fearlessly telling America that a family structure in which fatherless households tally 30% of the total (seems quaint, now, doesn't it?) is a recipe for social disaster.

Or Bobby K fearlessly telling a group of snotty med students at Harvard, "Who will pay for national health insurance? YOU will, and you, and you, and I and every one of us, because it's the right policy for America."

Or Bobby Jindal casting out the dev, er I mean cleaning up the sh*thole known as Louisiana politics, at the ripe age of 37, and causing Louisianians to tell pollsters that they, unique among Americans in 2008, are delighted with the way things are going for them and their state, and giving Jindal a 70% approval rating (vs 12% disapproval.)

And Barney Frank is easily the sharpest and most accomplished congressman our nation has had in decades. His tenacity, focus, drive, and REAL accomplishments have enabled this very un-cool, frumpy, frog-faced gay man to win rave reviews from not just Democratic but REPUBLICAN colleagues.

Obama talks a good game. These guys DELIVER it. In my younger and more vulnerable years, I worshipped smooth talkers and developed a good patter myself, but having been bounced around some very tough corporate and finance environments since then, I've seen the damage that is caused by a good talker who can't deliver the goods.  I could be wrong but I believe Obama is one of  those types. He's definitely not a Bobby K / Barney F / Daniel Pat type. No way.

Jaunty Ken, as always, reminds us of our better angels. I'll lay off.

If a word in defense of snark is permitted, your honor, I can only say that had this man been treated like any other sharp-elbowed Chicago pol-- hell, the way JFK was treated in 1960, or how Clinton was treated in '92, when I championed him (to the disdain of my greedhead B-school classmates)-- ie  given a normal level of scrutiny and skepticism, then I wouldn't be such a Grinch about this. But we are not Whoville residents, and our media betters are not Cindy Lou.

It's like hearing everyone around you go on and on about that incredible new movie by M Night Schlemelian or whoever, and then you watch the first 60 minutes of it and realize it's, well, if not junk, then nothing worth paying $10 and squandering an evening for.

Which is not to say that the last 60 minutes may not turn out to be excellent, or that your money and time could have been just as ill spent watching an old Mike Nichols yawner remake of some French comedy, but it's grating to keep hearing about how M Night what's-his-name is the next coming while Mike Nichols is such a turkey. It ain't necessarily so.

That said, I'll shut up now and drink my Talisker in polite, skeptical silence, enjoying the show.

Bill Yard, I'll take up your offer of a trip to the Mall. But let me choose which mall, and no tours after school's out. Behave.

Thanks for your detailed response to my somewhat grouchy post, literatehobo.  I think we'll have to agree to disagree about the importance of the national anthem incident.

Concerning policy, I still don't see what concerns you.  I understand that agricultural issues seem to be especially important to you, but where specifically do you have a problem with Obama in this area?  I can't deny that there is something substantive to your queasiness with Obama, but I just can't spot what it is.  You say that he strikes you as a standard centrist Democrat,  and that you like standard centrist Democrats.  But then you want him to be "different" in some way, and I'm not sure why.

I'm really not trying to be deliberately obtuse here, I just don't understand your  qualms with BHO.

Literate, you're entitled to your opinion and even gut impressions.  I respect that, although I disagree. I know you see things one way, but I see most of it as deeply cynical and based on the automatic assumption of the very worst in everything Obama says and does, which seems to be an unrealistic way to view someone - anyone -  at best.

So OK, subjectivity is what it is on either end - but I'd like to see the humility to admit that it is, in fact that: subjectivity. That someone who feels the opposite is not a blind idiot child while the  real wise ones - or as Tep incessently and insulting says, the mature adults - sit over there on the enlightened side of the fence.  

Besides the personlized nature, self-congratulations and monomania of the Obama hatred, what I really have a problem with is the knee-jerk dehumization of someone to  the point where the person - in this case Barack Obama - ceases to exist and the biases and personality of the dehumanizer are the only thing left.  They become more and more invested in proving their point and the dehumanization careens down into a gulch. Its destructive, dangerous - check out history.

By any deifniton, there is no way that everything this man says, everything he does, every person he's ever known, every step he makes, every thought, every move of his campaign, every speech, every plan, deserves such crappy treatment - it says nothing about Obama anymore.  Tep's rantings ceased beingin any sense a realistic assessment of a candidate long ago and become something akin to bigotry.

Literate- I'm also fed up with every thread being hijacked with this garbage - Tep ranting about he awfullness of whatever Obama has said or done. My husband's grandmother, 85, called me yesterday in  tears of joy seeing Germans waving American flags - is she a bs loving dolt?  This doesn't matter all of a sudden because Obama caused it?  That's cynicism I simply cannot respect.  It's a sickness.  I wouldn't care if Beezlebub caused that.  The emotional stinginess of refusing to see any value in that or the person causing it is somewhere between sick and sad.

Also - you may not remember, but I do Literate:  Tep's first responses to Obama consisted of references to geri curl and callng him Naomi Campbell. its kind of hard to be taken seriously in your insta-hatred add water after that.  It just all starts to sound like geri curl comments hiding behind more acceptable imsults.  

So you'll excuse me if I find it all to be BS.

Mitchell: 'Scuttlebutt' Says McCain Sabotaged Obama Military Hospital Visit

www.newsbusters.org/.../mitchell-scuttlebutt-says-mccain-sabotaged-obama-military-hospital

[The Obama campaign thought that they could go, leave the press corps on the tarmac, and then take off with military escort and make this one last visit.  As he did in Iraq, by the way.  He visited a casualty unit in the Green Zone, without photographers, as part of the congressional delegation. But the military said that the rules are that he could only go as part of a previously-arranged congressional delegation, to Ramstein.]

"the Left and Democrats feared and despised Ronald Reagan because he could move millions to do things THEY didn't think was good"

It would seem that this time things are reversed; fortunately (perhaps unfortunate if you are a hard-line capitalist) we have a nice, solid, center-left D who is seems to want to point direction is the same direction I've been thinking it needs to be pointed for around 7 years.

s4200

Do me a favor, please don't refer to the Western Wall as the "Wailing Wall".  You see many Jews find that term derogatory, and somthing of an insulting.  Thanks.

teppy...

now those posts make more sense to me. Yes, as with all politicians, one goes by one's gut and instincts. I can understand and appreciate that. It is not that The Bench cannot understand that you or anyone would not support Obama. Not at t'all. It was the tone, which really was not recognizable with the teppy that I know and love.

But every now and then, talkback drives us nuts and we wander into the dangerous kirchick/peretz mindless grudge zone....

I understand both Tep's and Literatehobo's skepticism -- I'm a skeptic by nature as well, and have never in my twenty four years of voting voted for somebody without holding my nose because I always assume the worst. The thing is I've finally come to realize, is that the politicians I really like (e.g., Biden) just ain't gonna win. And it's partly because they don't have the public image thing down smoothly, and they're too quirky to ever have it down smoothly. They mess up too much.

Obama is a very smart cookie. He's smooth as hell. Because he wants to win. It's a job that requires a huge ego. I know a coupla people with egos that size. They're extremely successful, both of them quasi-famous. To get where they've gotten, they've had to be ruthless and supremely confident in their own abilities. Their ruthlessness scares me sometimes. But their characters are also large and complex.There's a whole lot more to them than the ruthless, or I wouldn't like them.

I dunno, maybe Obama's overdoing the smooth. But G-d damn do I admire the guy's ability.  And I do think he's very very smart and has a much more complex understanding of issues, much greater vision than McCain. Smart is extremely important to me after seven years of Bush. Reversing some of the damage that's been done to the constitution is very important to me after the last seven years, improving international relations is very important to me after the last seven years. Thinking I have to personally like my candidate is not. All I care about is competence. And of the two candidates we have before us, I think Obama is the more competent. By a long shot.

And Literatehobo, do you have kids? It's hard to imagine that you do given your criticism of his response to that little four year old girl's performance. To anybody who's had kids, of course he should have lavished praise on her abilities in a gushy fashion-- it's what you do to build up the egos of little kids so they grow up to have self-confidence. Especially after going up in front of a huge audience like that -- I guarantee you that was terrifying to her. He had to give positive reinforcement of that magnitude after that. As nauseating as that was to you, I really doubt that it was insincere. I've watched him around his daughters, I've seen him holding babies -- the guy genuinely likes kids and he knows what he's doing around them.

Literate:

"what I see in Obama is standard Democratic policies that any centrist Democrat would run on. I don't see much different, unique, or memorable"

Precisely, neither do I.  If fact, regardless of what Teppy thinks on the policy side, the contours of this election - as in the past two elections - have already been defined by the dynamics of the US political system and the needs of the country.  The question is the direction and the leadership.  McCain is stay the course (perhaps pissing slightly less on the allies, and torturing and rendering fewer Ay-Rabs) and Obama is to move away from some - though not all - of what has gone on these past seven years.

I don't think - I certainly hope not - that he will be a "transformational" politician, whatever that might mean, and in any event I have an aversion to any sort of wholesale transformation: a country is not a dog you can yank this way or that, it requires patience and hard work to move.  

So then what is it about him that is appealing?  Well, politics is about getting power, and holding on to it, to achieve certain ends.  Those ends you have described - they will be more or less the same whether it is a Hillary or a Biden.  And so, the question becomes, who best to get the power.  To get the power, you have to sell - yourself, and "your" policies.  And even Tep agrees that Obama has done a masterful job, so far, as a politician, of selling himself, or his story arc, to the Democratic Party.  Now, the rest of the country remains somewhat sceptical, as it should, and we'll have to see how Obama will manage it.  Based on what I have seen, I'd say he'll manage it well enough.  Better than Biden or Dodd; and, I think, better than Hillary.

And, thrown into the deal as sort of a bonus, you get a gifted speaker - not Cicero, but then, Cicero was not Cicero either - an intelligent man who can string coherent, if sometimes sappy, sentences together; a man who, evidently, inspires hope - using a personal story that Tep might not like but that appeals to and reaches many thousands of people; a man who is curious about the world and who knows something about it ... not, that ain't half bad.

re the kid thing: that's something I have noticed about McCain -- despite the fact that he and his wife have all these kids, he really doesn't seem that comfortable around them. Not that I care, it's not one of the things that goes into the mix of my preference for  a candidate, but it's interesting given the down to earth  common man touch image he likes to project. Plus it also goes to show he probably didn't spend much time changing diapers or getting spit up on him. Obama definitely has that aura when he's around kids, despite the snotty cool elite label.

And of course Scire says what I was trying to say, more cogently and in fewer words ... in my defence, I had a rough night last night - polished off a few bottles of Beaune and staggered to work after two hours of sleep.

"I guarantee you that was terrifying to her."

Hmmm.  There are pictures of me in kindergarten, during a class performance, pushing other kids away to be centre stage (you can see my elbow in some boy's ribs as I am belting out a tune) ... she might well not have been as terrified as all that ;-).  

blackton

Thanks for bringing a little sanity to this thread.  Your words were some of the only respite I found in what seemed to be a continuous string of ugly vehemence and hatred, the like of which made me cringe, and I don't cringe easy.

teplukhin2you

Man are you fucked. For what it's worth I feel your pain. I started out being angered by your comments, but I quickly realized that you're in a really low place, and I feel some genuine compassion for you, perhaps that makes me a sucker, because I know exactly what you're trying to do with cheap shot comments like this.

"He also opposes school vouchers. And drilling for more oil. I know it warms the hearts of urban hipsters and single folks to sock it to the suburban family non-hipsters, but these are some of the core concerns of working families. Obama's agenda does nothing for them."

Either way, I pity you just the same.

But I suppose if your taxes are going to go up under Obama's plan I guess you can't be that bad off financially.  If it makes you feel any better, I'm probably in a much much worse place than you are financially. Ever get a bill for 1.7 million from a hospital?  I did.  Maybe just maybe Obama will put an end to that kind of ridiculous crap once and for all.  I know one thing, whatever he does has got to be better than what we've got now.

Given your mood and general disposition I tell you this thinking that perhaps you'll take some slight satisfaction in the misfortune of an Obama supporter, and cheer the hell up a bit. :-)

I don't expect I'll get anything personally out of an Obama administration, that's not why I'm in this thing, I'm in it for the big picture, my kid and her prospects, and the future prospects of all America's children. I don't know why it is that you can't see the character in this man that so many of us see, but my grandfather taught me at an early age that a man's character is what's important, and I think myself a pretty good judge of character.  I just hope for all our sakes that I learned the ability to perceive with the same keen insight and instinct that my grandfather had, only time will tell I suppose. So hang in there, help is on the way, perhaps even for those who can't see it yet.

Scire, on what is based your belief that Obama is the more competent candidate?  His record is so thin thta it is hard to say.  And competent at what?  Yes, he is a great public speaker, and seems like a smart man.  The fact is that he has never been in charge of an organization at any level - not even president of his homeowners association and, hell, even I've done that.

Most of the folks here would vote for the Dem regardless of who the Dem is, and I get that.  But as Bill Clinton said, to vote for Obama is "a roll of the dice."  We have no idea how he will conduct himself as President, which is why this is a referendum on Obama.  We know McCain, because he has been on the nat'l scene for 20+ years, never mind all the military/POW stuff before he got into politics.

As you say, he's overdoing the smooth.  The cool.  Which drives teppy crazy.

and my last word, literate: I have deliberately NOT sought out one of Obama's rallies. I have a knee jerk response to large adoring crowds -- I want to run as far away as possible. My skepticism meter shoots up. And my objectivity goes way down. I stay away 'cause I know I'd hate the guy if I went. But it wouldn't be his fault, it would be my own instinctively negative response to the herd mentality.

www.huffingtonpost.com/.../reading-the-pictures-emfu_b_114893.html

McCain poses with Graham in front of "Schmidt's Fudge Haus".

Butchie: "The fact is that he has never been in charge of an organization at any level - not even president of his homeowners association and, hell, even I've done that."

Actually, neither has McCain.  We do know he crashed four aircraft before he was crashed in Vietnam; we know he was passed over for promotion to Admiral; we know he got his break as a Navy flier because of Daddy Admiral; we know he called his own wife a c*** and ditched model one for a richer, 7 mansion model.  Yeah, we know enough about JMcC.

Hobo, you make some excellent points from a down to earth, first hand perspective.  Nice.

well, part of my confidence that he's competent? The way he's run his campaign for one. THe fact that he can think for another. I think it's just as much a roll of the dice with McCain -- please tell me what's he's run competently? He's been an argumentative legislat