05/08: Obama: The Lost Years
Category: Politics
Posted by: an okie gardener
LGF has this link to Stanley Kurtz's reporting on B.Obama between '96 and '04. For sources he reached beyond the Sun-Times and Tribune to the black newspaper The Chicago Defender and to The Hyde Park Herald.
From Kurtz:
What they portray is a Barack Obama sharply at variance with the image of the post-racial, post-ideological, bipartisan, culture-war-shunning politician familiar from current media coverage and purveyed by the Obama campaign. As details of Obama’s early political career emerge into the light, his associations with such radical figures as Reverend Jeremiah Wright, Father Michael Pfleger, Reverend James Meeks, Bill Ayers, and Bernardine Dohrn look less like peculiar instances of personal misjudgment and more like intentional political partnerships. At his core, in other words, the politician chronicled here is profoundly race-conscious, exceedingly liberal, free-spending even in the face of looming state budget deficits, and partisan.
It seems to me that we still can see that same politician if we look carefully. Witness Obama's continued references to racism as he tries to disarm his critics, his trillion-dollar spending proposals, and his money and support ties to the gay and lesbian activists.
From Kurtz:
What they portray is a Barack Obama sharply at variance with the image of the post-racial, post-ideological, bipartisan, culture-war-shunning politician familiar from current media coverage and purveyed by the Obama campaign. As details of Obama’s early political career emerge into the light, his associations with such radical figures as Reverend Jeremiah Wright, Father Michael Pfleger, Reverend James Meeks, Bill Ayers, and Bernardine Dohrn look less like peculiar instances of personal misjudgment and more like intentional political partnerships. At his core, in other words, the politician chronicled here is profoundly race-conscious, exceedingly liberal, free-spending even in the face of looming state budget deficits, and partisan.
It seems to me that we still can see that same politician if we look carefully. Witness Obama's continued references to racism as he tries to disarm his critics, his trillion-dollar spending proposals, and his money and support ties to the gay and lesbian activists.
Category: Politics
Posted by: A Waco Farmer
In brief, as I gave Barack Obama holy hell for rolling a dismal 37 game in his disastrous bowling photo op during the Pennsylvania primary, it is only right to note with much admiration (perhaps even some awe) his magnificent performance from beyond the three-point line in front of a big crowd and huge television audience during his world tour.
If you haven't seen it (if that is even possible) here it is via YouTube.
By the way, this was no fluke. Evidently, Obama really is deadly from the outside--and he can perform this feat almost on demand.
Certainly, no one would argue that "draining threes" is a necessary presidential skill--but, undoubtedly, clutch play in tight situations is a big plus.
I am convinced that he is the wrong man for the job, but, for me at least, he is nearly impossible to dislike.
If you haven't seen it (if that is even possible) here it is via YouTube.
By the way, this was no fluke. Evidently, Obama really is deadly from the outside--and he can perform this feat almost on demand.
Certainly, no one would argue that "draining threes" is a necessary presidential skill--but, undoubtedly, clutch play in tight situations is a big plus.
I am convinced that he is the wrong man for the job, but, for me at least, he is nearly impossible to dislike.
26/07: Namby-Pamby Post Editorial
Category: Campaign 2008.13
Posted by: A Waco Farmer
I am a big fan of the Washington Post, which will not make me popular among my conservative brethren. Nevertheless, the Post is clearly the one great national paper that consistently places the best interest of America over ideology.
An even more damning confession: I continue to be a big fan of National Public Radio. NPR received an avalanche of criticism for reporting almost nothing but the bad news from Iraq (back when we were failing miserably). But did anyone on the Right side of the blogosphere notice that among the left-leaning journalist elite, NPR led the way in reporting the Anbar Awakening and the success of the Surge, eventually shaming the more-watched mainstream media into acknowledging the obvious--eventually.
Back to the Post, their editorial today criticizes John McCain for a "lack of civility."
The offensive McCain quote:
"Because anyone who fails to acknowledge that the surge has worked, who has consistently opposed it, consistently never sat down and had a briefing with General Petraeus, our commander there, would rather lose a war than a political campaign."
While admitting McCain is absolutely correct, the Post assails him for "falling short of [his own] standards...of respect and courtesy in the heat of political battle."
Hooey!
Barack Obama was absolutely and vociferously adamant that the Surge was abject folly (back when that line was politically advantageous for him). Now that it is obvious to any objective observer that his former position proved incorrect, Obama will not admit his error (when such an admission might well injure him politically).
As no one knows what lurks in the hearts of men, I will not speak to his motivations, but Mr. Obama's current obstinate denial is not the behavior of a statesman, sir; that is the conduct of a calculating poltroon.
How was that? More civil? It is definitely more nineteenth century.
Here it is bluntly: the Democrats are invested in defeat in Iraq (that is a right-wing talk radio line--but it is right on). Harry Reid said the war was lost (I hope, I hope, I hope). Let's face some facts: the successful surge is very politically inconvenient for 2008 Democrats. David Petraeus is a colossal pain in the backside for Obama boosters.
Call me crude, but I have said on numerous occasions for months and months, the key question for the future of America is this: will Democratic politicians sacrifice their political advantage over Iraq to help save the nation?
McCain merely said what we all can see.
Was it blunt? Was it a bit indelicate?
Yes--but if you don't scream it out at the top of your lungs in this current climate--who is going to hear? That is, if you don't spell it out for (and past) the Obama-adoring press corps--is anyone likely to notice this glaring inconsistency and disturbing character flaw?
Stand down Washington Post.
An even more damning confession: I continue to be a big fan of National Public Radio. NPR received an avalanche of criticism for reporting almost nothing but the bad news from Iraq (back when we were failing miserably). But did anyone on the Right side of the blogosphere notice that among the left-leaning journalist elite, NPR led the way in reporting the Anbar Awakening and the success of the Surge, eventually shaming the more-watched mainstream media into acknowledging the obvious--eventually.
Back to the Post, their editorial today criticizes John McCain for a "lack of civility."
The offensive McCain quote:
"Because anyone who fails to acknowledge that the surge has worked, who has consistently opposed it, consistently never sat down and had a briefing with General Petraeus, our commander there, would rather lose a war than a political campaign."
While admitting McCain is absolutely correct, the Post assails him for "falling short of [his own] standards...of respect and courtesy in the heat of political battle."
Hooey!
Barack Obama was absolutely and vociferously adamant that the Surge was abject folly (back when that line was politically advantageous for him). Now that it is obvious to any objective observer that his former position proved incorrect, Obama will not admit his error (when such an admission might well injure him politically).
As no one knows what lurks in the hearts of men, I will not speak to his motivations, but Mr. Obama's current obstinate denial is not the behavior of a statesman, sir; that is the conduct of a calculating poltroon.
How was that? More civil? It is definitely more nineteenth century.
Here it is bluntly: the Democrats are invested in defeat in Iraq (that is a right-wing talk radio line--but it is right on). Harry Reid said the war was lost (I hope, I hope, I hope). Let's face some facts: the successful surge is very politically inconvenient for 2008 Democrats. David Petraeus is a colossal pain in the backside for Obama boosters.
Call me crude, but I have said on numerous occasions for months and months, the key question for the future of America is this: will Democratic politicians sacrifice their political advantage over Iraq to help save the nation?
McCain merely said what we all can see.
Was it blunt? Was it a bit indelicate?
Yes--but if you don't scream it out at the top of your lungs in this current climate--who is going to hear? That is, if you don't spell it out for (and past) the Obama-adoring press corps--is anyone likely to notice this glaring inconsistency and disturbing character flaw?
Stand down Washington Post.
Category: Friends of the Bosque Boys
Posted by: A Waco Farmer
In response to my post on John McCain and the anatomy of an upset, candidate for the Iowa House of Representatives, and my good friend, Jamie Johnson wrote:
GUEST BLOG
WACO: You make a good comparison. Yes, the NCAA basketball circa-1980s upsets are worth pondering, especially the Volvano strategy.
John McCain is slowly and steadily rising despite the media's over-the-top coverage of Obama's Middle East trip. Don't count Johnny Mac out -- those who do usually lose. He is the closest thing to an energizer bunny that anyone has seen in modern American politics.
Remember where McCain was in the Spring of 2007? People told him to pack it in, that it was all over. He had to lay off his whole campaign team. He had to start carrying his own bags again in airports. And that was when it happened -- he reconnected with the common man, the guy who ultimately decides every election.
In the midst of all the Obama worship, we need to ask ourselves one simple question: WHO WILL THE COMMON MAN VOTE FOR ON NOVEMBER 4?
Let me rephrase it. Who will be the candidate of choice for the independent, 44-year old, white male who is married (perhaps divorced) with two teenage children; who goes to work in jeans and carries a lunch bucket; who worries about his kid's future and his own retirement; whose wife (or girlfriend) often puts only one slice of baloney on his sandwich; who loves the flag and the pledge and the soldier; who respects the Good Book, even if he doesn't always live by it; and who hates what is happening to his country.
Despite what he tells pollsters when they call, despite what he may say to union activists in the lunch room -- when he gets in the privacy of that voting booth on November 4, where only God can see him -- which man will he vote for?
Answer: John McCain. Why? Because he sees himself AS John McCain -- a survivor, a guy who everybody counted out, a salt-of-the-earth type with calloused hands, chapped lips, a slight weight problem, etc. He is the Michigan man, the Ohio man, the Pennsylvania man -- the man who, 28 years ago fell in love with Reagan, and now sees an arrogant Obama acting as if he were already anointed President.
WACO, you are right. McCain may be the political Jimmy Volvano of 2008. And if he is, who will he find to hug on election night?
GUEST BLOG
WACO: You make a good comparison. Yes, the NCAA basketball circa-1980s upsets are worth pondering, especially the Volvano strategy.
John McCain is slowly and steadily rising despite the media's over-the-top coverage of Obama's Middle East trip. Don't count Johnny Mac out -- those who do usually lose. He is the closest thing to an energizer bunny that anyone has seen in modern American politics.
Remember where McCain was in the Spring of 2007? People told him to pack it in, that it was all over. He had to lay off his whole campaign team. He had to start carrying his own bags again in airports. And that was when it happened -- he reconnected with the common man, the guy who ultimately decides every election.
In the midst of all the Obama worship, we need to ask ourselves one simple question: WHO WILL THE COMMON MAN VOTE FOR ON NOVEMBER 4?
Let me rephrase it. Who will be the candidate of choice for the independent, 44-year old, white male who is married (perhaps divorced) with two teenage children; who goes to work in jeans and carries a lunch bucket; who worries about his kid's future and his own retirement; whose wife (or girlfriend) often puts only one slice of baloney on his sandwich; who loves the flag and the pledge and the soldier; who respects the Good Book, even if he doesn't always live by it; and who hates what is happening to his country.
Despite what he tells pollsters when they call, despite what he may say to union activists in the lunch room -- when he gets in the privacy of that voting booth on November 4, where only God can see him -- which man will he vote for?
Answer: John McCain. Why? Because he sees himself AS John McCain -- a survivor, a guy who everybody counted out, a salt-of-the-earth type with calloused hands, chapped lips, a slight weight problem, etc. He is the Michigan man, the Ohio man, the Pennsylvania man -- the man who, 28 years ago fell in love with Reagan, and now sees an arrogant Obama acting as if he were already anointed President.
WACO, you are right. McCain may be the political Jimmy Volvano of 2008. And if he is, who will he find to hug on election night?
~~AN IOWA POLITICIAN
Gerard Baker of the Times Online has an amusing piece today:
And it came to pass, in the eighth year of the reign of the evil Bush the Younger (The Ignorant), when the whole land from the Arabian desert to the shores of the Great Lakes had been laid barren, that a Child appeared in the wilderness.
The Child was blessed in looks and intellect. Scion of a simple family, offspring of a miraculous union, grandson of a typical white person and an African peasant. And yea, as he grew, the Child walked in the path of righteousness, with only the occasional detour into the odd weed and a little blow.
When he was twelve years old, they found him in the temple in the City of Chicago, arguing the finer points of community organisation with the Prophet Jeremiah and the Elders. And the Elders were astonished at what they heard and said among themselves: “Verily, who is this Child that he opens our hearts and minds to the audacity of hope?”
Read the whole thing here
And it came to pass, in the eighth year of the reign of the evil Bush the Younger (The Ignorant), when the whole land from the Arabian desert to the shores of the Great Lakes had been laid barren, that a Child appeared in the wilderness.
The Child was blessed in looks and intellect. Scion of a simple family, offspring of a miraculous union, grandson of a typical white person and an African peasant. And yea, as he grew, the Child walked in the path of righteousness, with only the occasional detour into the odd weed and a little blow.
When he was twelve years old, they found him in the temple in the City of Chicago, arguing the finer points of community organisation with the Prophet Jeremiah and the Elders. And the Elders were astonished at what they heard and said among themselves: “Verily, who is this Child that he opens our hearts and minds to the audacity of hope?”
Read the whole thing here
24/07: Numbers, Odds, and Upsets
Last week we learned that Inflation is soaring (reportedly at the highest levels since 1981) and growth is anemic.
Hello Stagflation! You heard it first (last July).
These numbers cannot come as much of a revelation to many of us. Milk and gas are $4.00 per gallon. Coffee is $4.00 per pound. Bread is $2.00 per loaf. In truth, these official statistics from the Department of Labor merely confirm what we have known for months. Chalk up the collective surprise to the inherent human power to delude ourselves into believing what we desperately want to see.
Hello Reality. Statistics catch up to life. To paraphrase Mary Chapin Carpenter, the Stars Might Lie, but eventually the numbers come around...
The Other Big Numbers that don't seem to make sense right now: McCain versus Obama.
The ubiquitous question: why is this race so tight?
Blah-Blah Nyborg writes this week:
Oh, let's just admit it: John McCain is a long shot. He's got a heroic personal story, and being white has never hurt a presidential candidate, but on paper 2008 just doesn't look like his year. And considering what's happening off paper, it might be time to ask the question the horse-race-loving media are never supposed to ask: Is McCain a no-shot?
No argument from me. I have said basically the same thing for months (although the "white" crack is gratuitous and misleading).
But seriously folks, who in their right mind would vote for John McCain for president?
Me--but I don't count---long story.
Why is McCain hanging in there on the national polls when all political science models, recent political history, and all conventional wisdom suggest that Obama ought to be up thirty points right now?
An Aside: is this somehow connected to the question from the spring: why can't he [Obama] put her [Clinton] away?
Eventually he did. And, chances are, he eventually will.
But what is going on?
I have been thinking about upsets lately. What is the dynamic of a mind-blowing, logic-defying upset?
Most upsets don't happen. Obvious, right? Most underdogs lose. An over-matched team may hang in for a while, fight the good fight, maybe even lead during the first quarter. But, eventually, the sky collapses on them--and the blowout commences.
But not always. There is a phenomenon we know as upsets. They do happen.
Two cases in point: Villanova-Georgetown, 1985, and NC State-U of H, 1983.
Rollie Massimino and the low-seeded Villanova Wildcats out-thought and out-fought the incredibly talented defending-champion Georgetown Hoyas to squeeze out perhaps the most shocking victory in all of American sports history in the 1985 NCAA Final. According to legend, Massimino predicted the exact number of points it would take to win the game and wrote it on the locker room chalkboard before tipoff. Villanova had a plan, and they worked it to perfection--shooting 78 percent from the field along the way. They maintained a thin lead for most of the game, and they never faltered, doubted, or faded under pressure.
If you watched that Final you may remember thinking no team (and certainly not Villanova) can maintain this level of excellence for an entire game. But they did. And Villanova prevailed--by two points (66-64).
Is John McCain Villanova? Does John McCain have a Rollie Massimino behind the scenes with a master strategy? No and No. John McCain has no plan, and he will not play brilliantly from now until the buzzer. Villanova-Georgetown offers little encouragement to Camp McCain.
However, remember the great Final Four upset of 1983. Jimmy Volvano and the Wolfpack of North Carolina State stunned a heavily favored University of Houston Cougars team, chocked full of future NBA Hall of Famers. "Phi Slamma Jamma." That was a crazy game in which the Cougars could never quite pull away, tightened up a bit down the stretch, and allowed their inexperience and their over-confidence to get the best of them. The Wolfpack hung around, hung around, and as the game devolved into chaos in the final seconds, a star NC State player shot an air ball which serendipitously landed in the hands of a role player standing in the right place at the right time, and he forcefully dunked it home to win a national championship for State by two points. SHOCKER!!!
Cue Jimmy V. racing around the court with his hands in the air looking for someone to hug.
PANDEMONIUM!!!
Possible? Maybe. McCain is much more the unstructured wild man hanging in there and needing a break at crunch time. But, who knows, things at least this strange have happened.
Do you believe in miracles!?!
Hello Stagflation! You heard it first (last July).
These numbers cannot come as much of a revelation to many of us. Milk and gas are $4.00 per gallon. Coffee is $4.00 per pound. Bread is $2.00 per loaf. In truth, these official statistics from the Department of Labor merely confirm what we have known for months. Chalk up the collective surprise to the inherent human power to delude ourselves into believing what we desperately want to see.
Hello Reality. Statistics catch up to life. To paraphrase Mary Chapin Carpenter, the Stars Might Lie, but eventually the numbers come around...
The Other Big Numbers that don't seem to make sense right now: McCain versus Obama.
The ubiquitous question: why is this race so tight?
Blah-Blah Nyborg writes this week:
Oh, let's just admit it: John McCain is a long shot. He's got a heroic personal story, and being white has never hurt a presidential candidate, but on paper 2008 just doesn't look like his year. And considering what's happening off paper, it might be time to ask the question the horse-race-loving media are never supposed to ask: Is McCain a no-shot?
No argument from me. I have said basically the same thing for months (although the "white" crack is gratuitous and misleading).
But seriously folks, who in their right mind would vote for John McCain for president?
Me--but I don't count---long story.
Why is McCain hanging in there on the national polls when all political science models, recent political history, and all conventional wisdom suggest that Obama ought to be up thirty points right now?
An Aside: is this somehow connected to the question from the spring: why can't he [Obama] put her [Clinton] away?
Eventually he did. And, chances are, he eventually will.
But what is going on?
I have been thinking about upsets lately. What is the dynamic of a mind-blowing, logic-defying upset?
Most upsets don't happen. Obvious, right? Most underdogs lose. An over-matched team may hang in for a while, fight the good fight, maybe even lead during the first quarter. But, eventually, the sky collapses on them--and the blowout commences.
But not always. There is a phenomenon we know as upsets. They do happen.
Two cases in point: Villanova-Georgetown, 1985, and NC State-U of H, 1983.
Rollie Massimino and the low-seeded Villanova Wildcats out-thought and out-fought the incredibly talented defending-champion Georgetown Hoyas to squeeze out perhaps the most shocking victory in all of American sports history in the 1985 NCAA Final. According to legend, Massimino predicted the exact number of points it would take to win the game and wrote it on the locker room chalkboard before tipoff. Villanova had a plan, and they worked it to perfection--shooting 78 percent from the field along the way. They maintained a thin lead for most of the game, and they never faltered, doubted, or faded under pressure.
If you watched that Final you may remember thinking no team (and certainly not Villanova) can maintain this level of excellence for an entire game. But they did. And Villanova prevailed--by two points (66-64).
Is John McCain Villanova? Does John McCain have a Rollie Massimino behind the scenes with a master strategy? No and No. John McCain has no plan, and he will not play brilliantly from now until the buzzer. Villanova-Georgetown offers little encouragement to Camp McCain.
However, remember the great Final Four upset of 1983. Jimmy Volvano and the Wolfpack of North Carolina State stunned a heavily favored University of Houston Cougars team, chocked full of future NBA Hall of Famers. "Phi Slamma Jamma." That was a crazy game in which the Cougars could never quite pull away, tightened up a bit down the stretch, and allowed their inexperience and their over-confidence to get the best of them. The Wolfpack hung around, hung around, and as the game devolved into chaos in the final seconds, a star NC State player shot an air ball which serendipitously landed in the hands of a role player standing in the right place at the right time, and he forcefully dunked it home to win a national championship for State by two points. SHOCKER!!!
Cue Jimmy V. racing around the court with his hands in the air looking for someone to hug.
PANDEMONIUM!!!
Possible? Maybe. McCain is much more the unstructured wild man hanging in there and needing a break at crunch time. But, who knows, things at least this strange have happened.
Do you believe in miracles!?!
"If ifs and buts were candy and nuts, what a Merry Christmas it would be."
"If the Sunni Awakening had not occurred, and the Shia Stand Down had not transpired, then the Surge, which has been successful, would not have been successful in itself, and I would have been right when I predicted that the Surge would not be successful, as I did not anticipate the other components coming together in the way that they did."
You think I exaggerate? Only slightly for comic effect. Here is the actual quote from the exchange with Terry Moran of ABC News:
Moran: The Surge?
You opposed the Surge, staunchly.
Would you say, based on what you see here, that you were wrong in saying that twenty thousand troops would not make a significant dent in the violence? They have…
BARACK OBAMA: Here’s what I‘ll say, I did not anticipate the convergence of not only the surge, but the Sunni Awakening, in which a whole host of Sunni tribal leaders decided they’d had enough with al Qaeda. In the Shia community the militias standing down to some degree. Had those political factors not occurred, I think my assessment would have been correct.
Moran: If you had it to do over again, knowing now what you do, would you support the Surge?
OBAMA: No because...
Moran: [incredulously] You wouldn’t?
OBAMA: What I am absolutely convinced of is that at that time we had to change the political debate because the view of the Bush administration at that time was one that I disagreed with and continue to disagree with because it focused narrowly on Iraq and not these broader issues...
A Waco Farmer: Say What?
Farmer's Note: I am linking the video of this exchange, which is available on the ABC Nightline website--but I have yet to see the transcript anywhere (I had to play the link repeatedly as I transcribed it myself). I also note that this exchange did not make the ABC web story summarizing the Moran/Obama interview. You will never hear me say "vast left-wing conspiracy," but this is the kind of coincidental lapse that makes it harder for me to convince my friends at the John Birch Society meetings that the mainstream media is really objective.
~~the Danderoo
"If the Sunni Awakening had not occurred, and the Shia Stand Down had not transpired, then the Surge, which has been successful, would not have been successful in itself, and I would have been right when I predicted that the Surge would not be successful, as I did not anticipate the other components coming together in the way that they did."
~~the Obamaroo
You think I exaggerate? Only slightly for comic effect. Here is the actual quote from the exchange with Terry Moran of ABC News:
Moran: The Surge?
You opposed the Surge, staunchly.
Would you say, based on what you see here, that you were wrong in saying that twenty thousand troops would not make a significant dent in the violence? They have…
BARACK OBAMA: Here’s what I‘ll say, I did not anticipate the convergence of not only the surge, but the Sunni Awakening, in which a whole host of Sunni tribal leaders decided they’d had enough with al Qaeda. In the Shia community the militias standing down to some degree. Had those political factors not occurred, I think my assessment would have been correct.
Moran: If you had it to do over again, knowing now what you do, would you support the Surge?
OBAMA: No because...
Moran: [incredulously] You wouldn’t?
OBAMA: What I am absolutely convinced of is that at that time we had to change the political debate because the view of the Bush administration at that time was one that I disagreed with and continue to disagree with because it focused narrowly on Iraq and not these broader issues...
A Waco Farmer: Say What?
Farmer's Note: I am linking the video of this exchange, which is available on the ABC Nightline website--but I have yet to see the transcript anywhere (I had to play the link repeatedly as I transcribed it myself). I also note that this exchange did not make the ABC web story summarizing the Moran/Obama interview. You will never hear me say "vast left-wing conspiracy," but this is the kind of coincidental lapse that makes it harder for me to convince my friends at the John Birch Society meetings that the mainstream media is really objective.
I caught a few minutes of a McCain town hall meeting on C-SPAN last night ("Road to the White House").
Obama proved himself exceedingly wise in his deft evasion of McCain's post-primary invitation to debate in ten town hall forums all across the county during the period prior to the conventions.
An Aside: what accounts for Obama's deftness? He unceremoniously and unabashedly "ducked" the straight-forward offer (technically, I think he and his staff are still considering the proposal)--and that was the last most of us heard on the subject. The mainstream media dropped the story, and John McCain could not find a way to make any hay out of Obama's refusal to meet on the field of honor.
Second Aside: although it has been widely reported that Barack Obama spurned public financing of his campaign (essentially, because he got a better offer), that dramatic disavowal of a time-honored Democratic Party (and Beltway press corps) shibboleth never rose to the level of a huge media story either. Love means never having to say you're sorry.
Third Aside: the best ironic human interest angle never reported (and almost certainly destined to be ignored through November) is that McCain really is everything that Obama purported to be during his "a change you can believe in" period. On the other hand, if a candidate loses his innocence, and the media refuse to report it, did it actually happen?
On last irony: ask the media why they lost that loving feeling for their erstwhile sweetheart, Maverick John McCain? Number One Answer: he changed.
Reset. Back to point. Why was Obama wise to avoid McCain and his offer to traverse the nation together on the same plane as his opponent meeting and greeting the people of our fair land like the statesmen of old?
Why?
Because McCain owns the format.
Watching McCain last night was truly awe-inspiring. There he was in a GM plant with a real audience. Some people liked him. Some people were obviously hostile questioners. But Johnny Mac backs down from no one. Some one wanted to hold his feet to the fire on his "flip flop" concerning off-shore drilling, he had an answer. He also said to her: "keep the microphone." He intended to answer her question and then give her a chance to follow up.
True Grit.
After she was satisfied (or at least subdued), her friend wanted to take him to task on Iraq. McCain told her he did not have time to answer that question fully, but then he proceeded to speak for the next ten minutes in rapid-fire explanation of American vital interests in Iraq yesterday, today, and tomorrow. It was a tour de force.
McCain crushes any other candidate in this venue.
Why? He has deep and thick positions on vital questions, which he can address from any number of angles.
The Bad News: McCain cannot deliver a speech to save his soul. Running for president cannot be an endless parade of town halls. Even worse, his opponent is a master stem winder. McCain looks even worse than he is (and he is dreadful) in comparison to Obama. If McCain is to win this election (which, let me remind you once again, is an outrageously unlikely proposition), he must avoid a big live televised speech to the American public (change the format of the nominating convention, if need be).
What works for McCain in terms of national media? Frankly, not much. Perhaps some quick-hitting commercials with video of his return as a POW, coming down the gangplank of his airplane smiling and hobbling, while the voice over (Tom Selleck maybe) talks about who McCain is and what he's going to do (cue some sentimental and patriotic music). Does that sound too manipulative? Maybe--but that is the only way to counter the oratorical majesty of his opponent--which, in truth, is merely a pleasant but basically irrelevant distraction from the real issues of this campaign.
McCain needs those town halls. What really works for McCain is hand-to-hand combat. If he could court the 125 million potential voters in America the way he wooed the 250,000 Republican and independent voters in New Hampshire, McCain would be the odds-on favorite for 2008. However, reality check, this is not the game.
Nevertheless, McCain needs those town halls. Why is Obama unlikely to spend any time with his opponent in this venue? The town hall not only plays to McCain's great strength, it also highlights Obama's chief stylistic weakness. While he is a brilliant writer and extraordinarily skilled at delivering his well-crafted speeches, Obama is not particularly articulate off the cuff. He can be rattled. Once off script and roughed up a bit, he may threaten to bomb Pakistan or begin scheduling face-to-face meetings with America's most wanted.
Obama reminds me of my students who sometimes claim "test anxiety." That is, "I knew all the material," they tell me, "but my mind went blank during the exam." What that means, generally, is that at some point at three in the morning they sort of remember being able to recite (for the most part) all the terms and definitions they had scribbled on a study sheet. But now that it is actually test time, and the pressure is on, they are scrambling and grasping for the answers.
Yes, believe it or not, in the American colleges of the present, there is an official diagnosis for this malady: Test Anxiety. Back when I was in school we just called it insufficient preparation. Now you can get a note from our disabilities specialist.
John McCain doesn't suffer from test anxiety. Generally, he does not need to call up something from a recent late-night cram session. McCain is thoroughly McCain. He is always on message--because he is the message.
Barack and Johnny will debate eventually in a tightly controlled network-anchor-dominated format in which both sides will fire broadsides at one another with probably little effect. In truth, neither one is a very good debater (Obama for the reasons listed above; McCain lacks humor and charisma). Having said that, Obama will win the visuals and the spin and most likely take the match on points.
Obama proved himself exceedingly wise in his deft evasion of McCain's post-primary invitation to debate in ten town hall forums all across the county during the period prior to the conventions.
An Aside: what accounts for Obama's deftness? He unceremoniously and unabashedly "ducked" the straight-forward offer (technically, I think he and his staff are still considering the proposal)--and that was the last most of us heard on the subject. The mainstream media dropped the story, and John McCain could not find a way to make any hay out of Obama's refusal to meet on the field of honor.
Second Aside: although it has been widely reported that Barack Obama spurned public financing of his campaign (essentially, because he got a better offer), that dramatic disavowal of a time-honored Democratic Party (and Beltway press corps) shibboleth never rose to the level of a huge media story either. Love means never having to say you're sorry.
Third Aside: the best ironic human interest angle never reported (and almost certainly destined to be ignored through November) is that McCain really is everything that Obama purported to be during his "a change you can believe in" period. On the other hand, if a candidate loses his innocence, and the media refuse to report it, did it actually happen?
On last irony: ask the media why they lost that loving feeling for their erstwhile sweetheart, Maverick John McCain? Number One Answer: he changed.
Reset. Back to point. Why was Obama wise to avoid McCain and his offer to traverse the nation together on the same plane as his opponent meeting and greeting the people of our fair land like the statesmen of old?
Why?
Because McCain owns the format.
Watching McCain last night was truly awe-inspiring. There he was in a GM plant with a real audience. Some people liked him. Some people were obviously hostile questioners. But Johnny Mac backs down from no one. Some one wanted to hold his feet to the fire on his "flip flop" concerning off-shore drilling, he had an answer. He also said to her: "keep the microphone." He intended to answer her question and then give her a chance to follow up.
True Grit.
After she was satisfied (or at least subdued), her friend wanted to take him to task on Iraq. McCain told her he did not have time to answer that question fully, but then he proceeded to speak for the next ten minutes in rapid-fire explanation of American vital interests in Iraq yesterday, today, and tomorrow. It was a tour de force.
McCain crushes any other candidate in this venue.
Why? He has deep and thick positions on vital questions, which he can address from any number of angles.
The Bad News: McCain cannot deliver a speech to save his soul. Running for president cannot be an endless parade of town halls. Even worse, his opponent is a master stem winder. McCain looks even worse than he is (and he is dreadful) in comparison to Obama. If McCain is to win this election (which, let me remind you once again, is an outrageously unlikely proposition), he must avoid a big live televised speech to the American public (change the format of the nominating convention, if need be).
What works for McCain in terms of national media? Frankly, not much. Perhaps some quick-hitting commercials with video of his return as a POW, coming down the gangplank of his airplane smiling and hobbling, while the voice over (Tom Selleck maybe) talks about who McCain is and what he's going to do (cue some sentimental and patriotic music). Does that sound too manipulative? Maybe--but that is the only way to counter the oratorical majesty of his opponent--which, in truth, is merely a pleasant but basically irrelevant distraction from the real issues of this campaign.
McCain needs those town halls. What really works for McCain is hand-to-hand combat. If he could court the 125 million potential voters in America the way he wooed the 250,000 Republican and independent voters in New Hampshire, McCain would be the odds-on favorite for 2008. However, reality check, this is not the game.
Nevertheless, McCain needs those town halls. Why is Obama unlikely to spend any time with his opponent in this venue? The town hall not only plays to McCain's great strength, it also highlights Obama's chief stylistic weakness. While he is a brilliant writer and extraordinarily skilled at delivering his well-crafted speeches, Obama is not particularly articulate off the cuff. He can be rattled. Once off script and roughed up a bit, he may threaten to bomb Pakistan or begin scheduling face-to-face meetings with America's most wanted.
Obama reminds me of my students who sometimes claim "test anxiety." That is, "I knew all the material," they tell me, "but my mind went blank during the exam." What that means, generally, is that at some point at three in the morning they sort of remember being able to recite (for the most part) all the terms and definitions they had scribbled on a study sheet. But now that it is actually test time, and the pressure is on, they are scrambling and grasping for the answers.
Yes, believe it or not, in the American colleges of the present, there is an official diagnosis for this malady: Test Anxiety. Back when I was in school we just called it insufficient preparation. Now you can get a note from our disabilities specialist.
John McCain doesn't suffer from test anxiety. Generally, he does not need to call up something from a recent late-night cram session. McCain is thoroughly McCain. He is always on message--because he is the message.
Barack and Johnny will debate eventually in a tightly controlled network-anchor-dominated format in which both sides will fire broadsides at one another with probably little effect. In truth, neither one is a very good debater (Obama for the reasons listed above; McCain lacks humor and charisma). Having said that, Obama will win the visuals and the spin and most likely take the match on points.
Category: American Culture
Posted by: an okie gardener
Interesting. More American blacks are converting to Judaism. The numbers are very, very small, but fascinating that such conversions are happening at all. Blacks and Jews, as groups, have had some antagonism since the Civil Rights struggles which united the two groups. And, Judaism does not seek out converts.
Story here from The Christian Science Monitor.
Another recent study by the Institute for Jewish and Community Research in San Francisco estimates that there are as many as 150,000 practicing black Jews in the US today, with synagogues across the country reporting increasing numbers of blacks either exploring or converting to Judaism.
Story here from The Christian Science Monitor.
Another recent study by the Institute for Jewish and Community Research in San Francisco estimates that there are as many as 150,000 practicing black Jews in the US today, with synagogues across the country reporting increasing numbers of blacks either exploring or converting to Judaism.
An absolutly brilliant essay on the role of Protestant faith in American discourse, and the loss today of a common vocabulary that accompanies the decline of the Mainline Denominations.
