So yesterday TG and I went and had dim sum (Empress Pavilion, crowded and excellent as usual) with a colleague and his wife, and then went to a Democratic fundraiser in the afternoon.
And somehow the experience completely summarized the state of the election for me.
My colleague is a young technology worker who drives a Prius and lives in Eagle Rock (the place where the hip people priced out of Silverlake move – which was in turn the place where the hip people who were priced out of Los Feliz moved). Over the holidays, we talked politics and he was a rabid Obama supporter. Today, not so much. He’ll vote for him, but it’s very tepid support. Why? Well, three things were mentioned: 1) Obama seems to only hold positions of convenience; 2) Obama seems to be a little more full of himself than his real accomplishments warrant; and 3) my friend no longer seems to be certain of exactly who Obama is.
Would he vote for McCain? No – and partly for the same reasons I wouldn’t. We need to shake the carpet in Washington, and changing parties seems like a good way to do things. What, exactly, does McCain stand for except the war (where my friend and I disagree on our views of his stance)? Seriously – neither of us could articulate a clear vision of what McCain believes other than no taxes and fighting Islamic radicals. McCain’s energy policy is as much a muddle as Obama’s (pandering with his gas tax holiday). Will he be crushed if McCain wins? No – just as I won’t be.
Could Obama lose his vote? Possibly – possibly easier than he could lose mine. And that’s not good.
What my friend is looking for is some clear foundation under Obama’s positions, other than “elect me”. What I’m looking for is some narrative arc from the master speechmaker that will tie his dazzling constellation of positions into one coherent view of who Obama was and who he has become and why. We’d both like to see the townhall debates that Obama is blowing off happen – because we both believe enough in Obama to think that by revealing more of himself, he’ll win over doubtful voters like my friend.
So – if any Obama speechwriters happen to be reading this – your work is cut out for you.
We headed off home to change and then up to a mansion overlooking the Pacific not too far from our much more modest home. Valets took our car, we were served fresh lemonade and excellent wine on a terrace overlooking the sea, and nibbled on good cheese and fruit while we mingled with the crowd and chatted. I ran into an old dear friend from my Venice days, who I was kind of surprised to see here – she’s a conservative Republican who supports this one candidate – and we chatted and caught up. While we did two friends of hers joined our circle – a prosperously-dressed couple in their early 60’s. He apparently owns an art gallery in West LA and his wife is involved in real estate – pretty archetypical for high-end California Democrats.
We chatted a little bit about the elections, and I mentioned our breakfast that morning and expressed concern that the election was going to be damn close, and that Obama could easily lose. Gallery Guy commented that the only way Obama might lose is because of the stupidity of the typical working class voter.
Years ago, I might have laughed that off, or told a joke about Swing Vote, or ignored it.
Not so much any more. I replied that he was wrong as a matter of fact and morality, that his position was dangerous to the Democratic Party, and that it was personally offensive to hear him belittle people who couldn’t afford houses like the one we were standing in. A quick discussion ensued, and he was pretty pissed off by the end of it and stormed away – glaring at me from time to time for the balance of the event.
It’s funny how irascible pacifists seem to be, isn’t it?
I’m stocking up on popcorn. It’s going to wild for the next three months.
The VEEP candidates may me more significant than usual, with so many people on the fence. And the issue isn’t just the possibility that the candidate might not complete his term of office. In fact, it’s primarily an issue of who is “set up” for the next election in 2012. Normally people wouldn’t give a hoot, but in this kind of situation it’s just a bigger consideration than normal. It’s also probably more important for Republicans than Dems, both because their candidate is older (and even with good genes, has reduced odds of term completion) but also because Republicans tend to “anoint” their VEEPs.
I agree that Republicans are badly in need of some refurbishment, but just don’t think they’re at the end of their “run.” I’m still incredibly disappointed not only at the corruption of Republicans in Congress, but more importantly at the impoverished policy prescriptions to which they gravitate. But the Dem’s prescriptions are just as tired and hackneyed, and they’ve been through a couple of election cycles on the “outs,” so the “therapy of loss” may be over-rated.
What the country might need is an exciting new third party that appeals equally to both sides, but isn’t so much a compromise as a new direction. I don’t think such a party could win, but they could catalyze genuine change (as opposed to the ersatz change that Obama represents).
Just a few thoughts… I’ll be throwing my 2 ounces into the balance, anyway.
What I find troubling with your position, is that Obama’s been campaigning for almost a year now, and you still don’t know what his positions are, shouldn’t you?
It’s nice that he gives a good speech, but what I have wanted to see is him really challenged on his views. I think he knows that he is a poor spontaneous speaker/thinker, and that’s why he will avoid at all costs, anything close to a free form town hall style debate. Obama doesn’t think well on his feet, his numerous verbal gaffes and his alarming ignorance of basic history prove this.
So far as I can tell, the only “clear foundation” Obama has is his desire to be elected, everything else is subject to change as needed. Running as a political outsider who behind the scenes has all of the trappings of your typical Chicago pol won’t fly with anyone who actually pays attention. Sure there are plenty of people like the Gallery owner who either by choice or out of ignorance will refuse to see the obvious, but I hope there are more American’s who actually pay attention to what is done vs what is said. Voting “present” on nearly all controversial pieces of legislation doesn’t bolster a lot of confidence in someone who claims to have good judgment.
I don’t believe much of what Obama says, he hasn’t really shown any backbone, its unclear what he really believes in, he continues to say what people want to hear instead of what he believes, his positions continue to change when it suits his purposes, he has not shown any form of character judgment based on who he has associated with and surrounded himself with in the past.
All I see is someone who speaks well in front of a teleprompter, and is photogenic. I equate those as qualities for a High School Class President, not President of the United States.
working class folk aren’t stupid, they just haven’t been perfected yet.
. . . and Gallery Guy sounds bitter. I hope somebody drove him home, he might have stopped on the way and got a FOID card or a Bible or a lottery ticket.
Your Gallery owner reminds me of all the industrialists who supported Hitler because they thought (a) he would be good for _their_business and (b) they thought they could control him, and (c) they thought they were insulated (by financial status) from any harm that he might do. It is always the _other_ people who these people see suffering (if at all) from any depredations of the Maximum/Fearless Leader.
That’s even better than “Change you can believe in”. It’s “Change you don’t have to believe in”.
I knew you were looking for that, and I was reminded of it recently when I saw a film about Werner Herzog’s search for the Loch Ness Monster. Herzog doesn’t really believe in the Loch Ness Monster, except as a “collective psychological construct”, but he leased a boat anyway.
You should see that. I think you would understand it a lot better than I did.
Interesting post. I really want to believe Obama’s message change. But can’t square his visions of hope with his votes and support of a socialist agenda.
I don’t like McCain, except for his support of the Iraqi component of the WOT, but am going to vote for him this fall.
No matter what one might think of Obama, McCain and the confused excuse he has tried to pass off as a campaign is not going to defeat him. Obama is Teflon. The McCain campaign’s embarrassing attempt at tarnishing that well constructed image just doesn’t cut it.
The GOP no longer has any philosophy, nor any Reaganism nor any Contract with America type position statement to galvanize the base and influence independents.
On one hand I think Obama is dangerous. On the other, I think McCain might be worse. Unless the party is purged of the Rovian “least common denominator” view of influencing the election, the party is doomed to be in the opposition for the foreseeable future.
I can’t believe I am saying this, but McCain no longer seems to be his own man. Although I supported him in 2000, I don’t feel that he is any longer the man to lead the party.
I believe that Obama is as good and as ruthless a politician as we have ever seen, which makes me am absolutely terrified that Obama is presently playing a rope-a-dope on McCain and will come back hard on him in October when the financial disparity will be way too much for McCain to overcome.
Obama is amazingly naive and has increasingly shown ignorance about many issues that are important to this country. His foolish statement that we can make up the difference between expected off shore drilling by keeping our tires inflated is an example. Tires inflation is a conservation measure. But we cannot conserve our way to oil independence. That is like say that with your income reduced 50% that by saving you can make up the difference. During the Carter energy crisis domestic oil production was 60-70% of our usage. Now it is about 26 %. My figures may not be exact but they are approximately correct.
His knowledge on the history of the Palestinian conflict and Israel was lacking. His comment to Katie Couric that he did not care that the surge succeeded, he still would not have been for it even with hindsight, indicated his supreme indifference to the Iraqi’s and did not care how many would die from disintegration of their society.
If the candidates were not great, the basis for you vote would be to vote for the candidate that will *do less harm*. In my opinion McCain is that candidate. He is generally fiscally conservative throughout all his years in the Senate. He refused earmarks for his state.
He is not inclined to over regulate guns. He is inclined to private market rather than state controlled solutions for health care.
So I implore you to consider which candidate will *do less harm* to our country. There will be less checks considering the Democrats will control the House and the Senate and there will be no rational second thought on foolish ideas like windfall taxes on oil companies. Just check the results of windfall taxes on oil companies in the 1970’s by Carter.
Failure to react forcefully against acts of war against the US has long lasting consequences. Carter pushed the Shah out and let the Mullahs into Iran. Iran went from an ally to an enemy. His failure to attack Iran when they took our embassy and took our personnel as hostages for an over a year caused the genesis of the terrorists movement.
Obama does not show any knowledge of current high-level diplomacy and cooperation on economics and intelligence between Europe and America. He seems to believe that diplomacy without the big stick will be successful despite an absolute refusal of Iran.
Obama has a distinct lack of accomplishment and experience that would form a basis for wisdom and judgment. His judgment has been lacking in his associates Rev, Wright, Rezko and Ayers. Most of his positions seem to be based on how it will help his own political aspirations.
These are just a sample of issues that show that Obama will do more harm to America than McCain.
*Remember do no harm.*
On domestic economic issues, the President is vastly overrated — Congress makes the budget. Yeah, the President’s party works a lot on the details.
To get “change” you need to change the people in Congress. Incumbents should be losing in primaries.
But, just as arguments over Iraq 2003-2007 crowded out much discussion of Fannie Mae, analysis of the President crowds out the need to change faces in Congress.
On the costs of the war, there was an important comment:
I think the world would be a better place without Mugabe and his murderous administration. But I wouldn’t vote to spend a trillion dollars over 5 years and spend 4,000 US lives + 100,000 Zimbabwean lives to achieve the goal.
What about $500 bil, 4 years, 3 000 US lives and only 50 k Zimbabweans? How much IS it worth to save Zimbabwe from Mugabe? I do like the multi-variables: USD, time, US lives, local lives. Of course, no way to decide between them.
What about that price to stop the genocide in Darfur?
In spring, 2004, Pres. Bush called Darfur a genocide, at about 50 000 killed. Had the UN agreed, the terms of the UN Charter would have easily justified a UN / US led invasion.
I would have supported it then. I support it now.
The cost of NOT invading is now running at about 400 000 dead, a figure the news folk don’t mention much.
This is the Obama/ UN type of “talk, not action” solution which I find far inferior to Bush’s nation building in Iraq. Unlike most supporters or critics, I’ve long had a (overly?) simplistic way to judge Bush’s Iraq score, US deaths (total with Bush in office).
<2500 Bush gets an A; <5000 is a B; <10000 is a C.
Most folk don't like this Body Bag Calculus, but I feel it is unavoidable if one wants to evaluate.
On the huge USD costs, much was done to save US lives. I'd guess something like 10-100 mil USD could be saved by giving that much less material to the military, and suffering another US death casualty.
AL, you're so correct to oppose Gallery Guy: the stupidity of the typical working class voter.
That PC moral AND intellectual superiority arrogance, coupled with obvious ignorance about so many things, is why the Dems deserve to lose, and especially why Obama should lose.
bq. 1) Obama seems to only hold positions of convenience; 2) Obama seems to be a little more full of himself than his real accomplishments warrant; and 3) my friend no longer seems to be certain of exactly who Obama is.
No? Duh’Oh!!!! Watch the $tiffie on the plane video. THAT tells you all you want to now about the MacDaddy Obamessiah (“We are the ones we’ve been waiting for. We are the change that we seek.”) Not here. Not now. Not ever.
RAH gets it above. The harm that Obama will *do* is infinite. His hubris leads him to believe he is immune from unintended consequences. He isn’t.
Tom Grey understands. What is Obama willing to sacrifice? I have yet to see a good answer from him to that. My guess is not much. He will not even go with an old man McCain to the townhalls for a real audition in front of America. *Why not?* We want to see what you are made of if you presume to be a leader and lead this nation. But it seems he will not even chance that little risk.
bq. Beware Charismatic Men Who Preach ‘Change’ – Manuel Alvarez Jr. Sandy Hook
bq. When the young leader spoke eloquently and passionately and denounced the old system, the press fell in love with him. They never questioned who his friends were or what he really believed in. When he said he would help the farmers and the poor and bring free medical care and education to all, everyone followed. When he said he would bring justice and equality to all, everyone said “Praise the Lord.” And when the young leader said, “I will be for change and I’ll bring you change,” everyone yelled, “Viva Fidel!”
bq. But nobody asked about the change, so by the time the executioner’s guns went silent the people’s guns had been taken away. By the time everyone was equal, they were equally poor, hungry, and oppressed. By the time everyone received their free education it was worth nothing. By the time the press noticed, it was too late, because they were now working for him. By the time the change was finally implemented Cuba had been knocked down a couple of notches to Third-World status. By the time the change was over more than a million people had taken to boats, rafts, and inner tubes.
re: Gallery Guy –
bq. Gallery Guy commented that the only way Obama might lose is because of the stupidity of the typical working class voter.
I’d like to meet him for about 5 minutes. Short meeting. But he does fit with Obummer.
bq. It’s not surprising, then, they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren’t like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations. BO
Marc, I am going to paraphrase Carl Lee Hailey from John Grisham’s “A Time To Kill”. You know the speech. Marc, you think you are like me but you’re NOT. Oh, you mean well but you are part of the problem. You really are one of them. You sit in a mansion on a high Ca hilltop, a place I could never dream of being, nibbling on cheese and sipping wine and discuss the concerns of the folks down at the bottom of the hill.
bq. …lives in Eagle Rock (the place where the hip people priced out of Silverlake move – which was in turn the place where the hip people who were priced out of Los Feliz moved).
I know you mean well. But you just don’t get it. That ba$tard Obama is pure poison. He is an elitist snob wannabe. He DID learn right well the lessons the great society wanted to teach him with it’s free ticket to the Ivy League. You liberals are going to most likely *GET* what you want. Good and hard. BOHICA – re: the story of Fidel above.
Good luck.
Gallery Guy commented that the only way Obama might lose is because of the stupidity of the typical working class voter.
Nothing new here, the idea that the stupid vote Republican. From the 1950s: Bright Adlai, Dumb Ike. The bumper sticker from the 1980s that said, “Vote Republican. It’s Better Than Thinking.”
Sorry Gallery Guy, it was using my noggin that caused me to leave the Democratic Party years ago.
Parting question for Gallery Guy. If the Democratic Party is where the Bright Guys hang out, how do you explain doofuses like Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid?
Thought I would throw in my 2cents.
I am basically a liberal leaning swing voter. I voted for McCain twice as a senator, and was hoping that this would be a good give and take on the issues. Unfortunately, I haven’t heard many issues debated yet. Obama had a good speech on energy yesterday, I think his expectations were a little high, but he seemed to have a multipronged approach for alternative energy (which I like to hear).
I have heard virtually nothing about McCain. Iraq till 2013. Gas tax holiday. Coal & Nuclear. More drilling. Yawn. McCain has yet to give me anything to demonstrate that would be a better leader. His new run of negative campaigns does nothing to identify his leadership position.
As for Obama, I’ve basically accepted that he’s a politcian, and crafty. He isn’t a ‘new breed’ of politician, but he seems ready to negotiate deals (such as temporary drilling if it helps pass long term alternative energy deals). I can deal with that.
_His foolish statement that we can make up the difference between expected off shore drilling by keeping our tires inflated is an example._
“According”:http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2008/07/from-the-fact-1.html to the U.S. Department of Energy, “every pound per square inch of tire underinflation wastes 4 million gallons of gas daily in the U.S.” Survey information from the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration shows that 27% of the cars on the road have a significantly under-inflated tire.
Using the website FuelEconomy.gov, Verrastro writes, we can estimate that “the maximum (estimated) fuel economy (i.e., mileage) savings drivers could expect as a result of keeping their engines properly tuned (4%), replacing air filters (up to 10%), properly inflating tires (up to 3%) and using the correct motor oil (1-2%) is 18-19%. Since American drivers use roughly 380 million gallons of gasoline (not including diesel) per day, an 18% improvement translates into a savings of 68 million gallons, or 1.62 million barrels of oil per day.”
However, since estimates of significant tire underinflation affect only about a quarter of the cars on road … the maximum savings amount is probably closer to 10%, Verrastro says. “So the production offset is more likely to approach 800 thousand barrels per day – a tidy sum and a worthwhile target for savings, but not equal to OCS output,”
Again, inflating tires is just one proposed “immediate” solution, to be followed by increasing efficiency, tax rebates for alternative energy etc.
I’ll grant you the one on 3% saving on tire inflation. I ran my computer model on that one, and lowering tire pressure from 35 PSI to 25 PSI on a 1996 Ford Taurus 3.0 L reduced the road fuel economy at 65 MPH from 30.7 to 29.7 MPG.
Tune up? What’s a tuneup? Apart from changing the platinum-tipped spark plugs at 100,000 miles, what is there to tune on an automobile built in the last 20-30 years? A modern car has no “breaker points” (it is all electronic and computer-controlled), no ignition timing adjustment, a computer-controlled idle speed so no adjustment there, no mixture adjustment of any kind. Maybe, if you are super consciencious, you might want to squirt some no-residue electronic tuner cleaner on your MAF, saving yourself whatever bucks your car guy charges.
Plugged air cleaner? Sorry pal, but if you have functioning O2 sensors, your engine control computer will automatically compensate, or at least until your filter is so plugged that the Check Engine or Service Engine Soon light comes on. If your O2 sensors fail, the Check Engine light comes on as well.
This low-maintenance regime along with the Check Engine nag is thanks to smog regs from your Federal and California State governments. The idea is to keep cars low smog, even with owners who don’t bring them in for tune ups. Do you drive around with a Check Engine Light on and say, no bother, it is just a little extra gas? No, I didn’t think so. The idea that we could reap huge savings on oil imports by having people maintain their cars is simply fiction.
putting the dems in the white house, and the senate, and the house, is “shaking the carpet”? riiiiggghhhhtttt.
I’m surprised to see AL write that he’s unsure of McCain’s positions, other than the war and drilling. McCain is firmly pro-life. He supports school choice and vouchers. Although he’s not entirely trustworthy on the subject, he tends not to support the use of the income tax as a means to redistribute wealth. He generally favors free-market solutions over direct government control. In the health care field, for instance, he does not favor nationalized health care but does propose ameliorative changes such as increases in the portability of employer-supplied health insurance and increased availability of individual health care policies. He’s a strong Second Amendment supporter. He favors strict constructionist judges.
You never quite know what he’ll support when it comes time to forging a bipartisan compromise, but in all other situations his voting record is solidly traditionally conservative and fairly predictable.
OK, I’ve been lurking here, mostly, for a while, and while sitting here in the Columbus OH Holiday Inn (gettin’ the Pup oriented for Ohio State) I’m driven to chime in.
Conceded: there are liberal Democratic voters who are elitists. A.L.: Will you concede that there are significant numbers of self-identified Republican voters who are likely to vote for McCain for reasons which have
a. little to do with his economic policies (which are difficult to distinguish from the current Prez’s, unless you make an effort)
b. little to do with his foreign policy views, or his expanation of exactly HOW he’s going to fund the war
and lots to do with the “culture wars” reasons which bring Young Colleague to use the term “stupid”?
Do the continued re-emphases (pl sp?) on BHO’s middle name in the right-wing blogosphere, and by the usual right-wing talking heads have any bearing on his policy views? Nah, they’re plain old appeals to prejudice, and if you try and tell me that the US is miraculously free of xenophobia and prejudice within a few years of people bugging Sikh 7-11 owners ’cause “he looked look like Saddam”,
and only part of my lifetime since Loving v. Virginia, I’m going to call you on the claim (remember, some state A.G. got up in front of the US Supreme Court in 1967 and argued, with a straight face that the state had a legitimate state interest in criminalizing miscecenation?)
Just what I see here from the heartland, folks. Back in to rock ‘n roll in Los Angeles tomorrow PM
r gould-saltman no avatars ever
Ohio State!! OMG!!!
Granted on all sides, just as I’ll grant that there are people who will blindly vote for a Democrat because of FDR and JFK or who will equally blindly vote *against* the Democrat because of FDR, ER, JFK, or Clinton.
But…
…it’s kind of a problem when the raison d’etre for a party is standing up for the less-advantaged and the strongest supporters of the party look on the same people with contempt.
It’s kind of like moralistic Christians getting caught in a bordello…
A.L.
Maybe this is why Obama won’t do any Town Hall style meetings when he’s off prompter, he’s worse than Bush.
According to documents published by the military, “John McCain tested at IQ 133”:http://isteve.blogspot.com/2008/04/mccains-reported-iq.html — hardly in keeping with the popular view of the candidates. Obama is treated as a kind of Wylie Coyote “Super-Genius,” because he went to Harvard and Columbia, though he has produced no scholarship by which we might judge his real intelligence. John McCain is treated as slow, because he’s old, and we have a cultural prejudice that old people are slow.
Well, not all of them. Some of them, who keep their minds awake by staying engaged, just get smarter and smarter. I can think of a few old men with carefully-knotted ties who were whip-smart all the way to the grave.
bq. neither of us could articulate a clear vision of what McCain believes other than no taxes and fighting Islamic radicals
Pardon me for being conservative, but that sounds like a damn fine platform. If it was being offered by a candidate other than McCain, they might actually get my vote.
Unbeliever at #21:
” _neither of us could articulate a clear vision of what McCain believes other than no taxes and fighting Islamic radicals.
Pardon me for being conservative, but that sounds like a damn fine platform._ ”
Yep, and to borrow the apochryphal Calvin Coolidge joke,
he’s against sin, too.
A.L. at #18:
” _…it’s kind of a problem when the raison d’etre for a party is standing up for the less-advantaged and the strongest supporters of the party look on the same people with contempt.
It’s kind of like moralistic Christians getting caught in a bordello…_ ”
Or wiggling their feet under airport restroom stalls, or hiring male “escorts”, or lining their friends’ pockets by “privatizing” a war effort.
My view, which I know places me in the minority here, is that the R.P.’s continuing posturing as the “party of the American working man”, (why else was John McCain at Sturgis?) while acting the way it has in the last 20 years has been as deeply hypocritical and manipulative (as per Thomas Franks the “Matter With Kansas” guy, not the general) as anything that the D.P. has done.
OSU was a blast, though a hot humid one. My only gripe was that they seem to be making college students younger and younger these days…
r gould-saltman
BA Ohio State 1975; JD USC 1978 (that’s what you call unresolved internal conflict!)
Actually, there’s a much longer post about the GOP and the “common man” but I’ll serve up a snippet – the level of contempt by Democratic elites for the ‘common man’ goes to the core of his social being, which the contempt the GOP elites have for the common man is something fixable by cash.
When the parties switched ownership of white ethnics and southern whites in the 1970’s, the GOP could include them because they believed in God and guns and freedom together. The new Democratic party can’t share that cultural attachment, and has nothing to offer them economically (note that I’m trying to change that).
A.L.
R Gould-Saltman, does it bother you when Michelle Obama goes to Zanesville, Ohio and complains about $10,000 piano lessons? Or is she being genuine?
Whether the Republican Party or the Democratic Party has the best policies for the working class is clearly debatable. But this election cycle seems similar to the last several election cycles. The Democrats are strong with Blacks and people with post-grad educations. The Republicans are strong with Whites with college degrees or less. (But with notable difference in enthusiasm levels)
The problem might be the nature of the party elites. Do post-grad degree Democrats socialize as much with people outside their class as small-business owner Republicans?
And the military, which is pretty much the sum of McCain’s non-political background, is perhaps the most economically diverse institution in the country.
I understand the man of the people John McCain wears $520 Italian shoes.
Frankly, if you’re going to spend that king of scratch on shoes, US-made Aldens are probably better.
I’m told Harvard Law School does blind grading, so Obama’s grades there look to me like evidence of intelligence, and while he didn’t publish law review articles, he does have a couple of books. This idea that Obama isn’t smart because he doesn’t have a law review note must be one of the lamest GOP attempts and that’s against some stiff competition. (We do know, of course, that McCain finished fifth from last in his Academy class.)
I’ve got some refereed journal publications. If you can’t vote for Obama, just write me in.
AJL – did I miss it – where did anyone suggest that Obama isn’t smart? It annoys me when anyone suggest that anyone playing at the national level, with the excption of Barbara Boxer, isn’t smart (actually, I’ve met Boxer, and while unimpressed, I’ll say she’s as smart as the average blogger I’ve met…).
Obama is hella smart – that’s the least of my concerns about him.
A.L.
A.L., the upthread reference on questioning Obama’s intelligence is not your original post, but comment 20 by Grim.
Incidentally, some ultra-liberal friends of mine weren’t bowled over by Boxer’s smarts either. They adored Phil Angelides, but in politics as in other forms of comedy, timing is everything.
Technically, I was merely questioning how smart he is relative to McCain, not whether he is smart. My point was that we aren’t thinking about this issue rationally, but giving into prejudice against older people.
We have documentation on McCain’s IQ, which — at 133 — put him in the upper few percent of humanity. Yet McCain is treated by the culture as obviously the slower candidate, I believe entirely on account of his age. If he makes a mistake in speaking (“Czechoslovakia”) that’s treated as a sign of his age. Obama, who makes similar speaking mistakes quite regularly, is said to be “tired,” and it’s not taken as a sign of a flaw.
_This idea that Obama isn’t smart because he doesn’t have a law review note must be one of the lamest GOP attempts and that’s against some stiff competition._
This issue was raised based on the improbable claim that Obama was offered a tenured position at U of Chicago without a record.
The other issue is why an ambitious law student wouldn’t seek to publish. Was his ambition so targeted against self-disclosure that he was afraid?
I always thought that Obama reminded me of the “That Guy†from Futurama who was thawed out from the 1980’s and wormed his way into becoming the president of Planet Express. He was really good at dazzling an audience with colorful slogans but at the end of the day, he didn’t know squat about what he was talking about.
P D Shaw, at #24:
While I would have liked a little better ear for tone in Zanesville, I’d note:
(a) nobody said “$10,000 piano lessons”;
(b) Obama has two daughters. Extra-curricular stuff, plus summer camp, (the right-wing bloggers keep putting breaks in the quote right before the “and” )at $416 per month per kid, doesn’t strike me as a nuts number, even for someone making half what the Obamas make, and frankly, I don’t think it’s going to shock even lower-middle-class Ohioans. They’re sacrificing for their kids; it’s not like having, say, auto racing as a hobby. It’s also, as noted elsewhere in the comments, less than the price of JMcC’s Italian loafers.
(c) Zanesville itself supports two private high schools, both parochial. Even taking into account the church subsidy, I’ll be really surprised if their base tuition comes to less than $3,000-$4,000 per year per kid.
Grim, can you explain why Obama would be in some sort of stealth mode as a law student and then write two autobiographies? That doesn’t make sense to me, so I think we should conclude that Obama’s failure to publish in law school has other roots.
I really can’t. I can’t explain how you get a contract with a major publishing house to write an autobiography at the age of 28. I don’t care who you are, at 28?
To be honest, Grim, I don’t think it’s hard for people of color who have risen out of poverty to Harvard Law to get their autobiographies published. Presumably the publishing houses feel there’s a market for that type of Horatio Alger story, and Obama’s background (Kansas, Kenya, Hawai’i all thrown in) is unusual, even for America.
By way of comparison, Elizabeth Wurtzel’s Prozac Nation was published when she was 26.
Could be you’re right. I may just not be the target market for 20-something memoirs. 🙂
R Gould Saltsman is right that I sluffed the quote: Michelle Obama to Zanesville Ohio: “I know we’re spending — I added it up for the first time — we spend between the two kids, on extracurriculars outside the classroom, we’re spending about $10,000 a year on piano and dance and sports supplements and so on and so forth,”
Average household income in Zanesville: “$31,932”:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zanesville,_Ohio
I know McCain’s not poor, nor are many of the recent Presidential candidates. I know Obama is not particularly wealthy for the circles he travels in or the circles he needs to travel in to get where he wants to go. (It explains Rezko)
A lot of us would like to see both parties reach out to the average guy, gal or family. Did McCain ever brag about how expensive his shoes are?
I think working class people are right to be concerned that higher taxes and new jobs that Obama promises in environmental regulation are going to benefit his post-grad educated following and not them.
_Grim, can you explain why Obama would be in some sort of stealth mode as a law student and then write two autobiographies?_
IIRC the autobiographies were not what the publishers had asked him to write. Perhaps they were sensitive to the important Grim market share.
If you saw how many groaning bookshelves we have around here, you would be too. 🙂
I’m sold :)) +1
PD Shaw at #36:
Nah, that’s apparently still not the complete quote, though it’s the piece you get get you read thirty-nine of the forty (whinging, meweling and puking) right-wing bloggers who come up first on a Yahoo search of “Obama-Piano-Zanesville”.
Taking Byron York’s “The Corner on National Review” as likely the closest to reliable of the lot, (but not likely to give the benefit of a doubt to Obama) and stripping out his parenthetical interjections and invective, I get:
“I know we’re spending — I added it up for the first time — we spend between the two kids, on extracurriculars outside the classroom, we’re spending about $10,000 a year on piano and dance and sports supplements and so on and so forth, [junk deleted here] and summer programs. That’s the other huge cost. Barack is saying, ‘Whyyyyyy are we spending that?’ And I’m saying, ‘Do you know what summer camp costs?'”
So when 39 of 40 bloggers trim that to “$10,000 piano lessons”, I call “BS!”
OK, now, anyone out there want to tell me what THEY paid for summer camp for two kids last year?
Or piano lessons?
R Gould-Saltman no avatars ever
. . . and, Armed: why are we apparently forbidden to post comments which include the name of that popular game of chance previously used for charity fund raisers by the Catholic Church, and then big as a source of gambling revenue from senior citizens going to Indian [hmm, apparently I can’t use THAT word either!]
“recreational facilities featuring games of chance” (!) in the desert? You know, the one with the same name as the dog in the kids’ song,
” -, I, N-G-O”? ? Seems an odd word to blacklist…
r gould-saltman
Sp*m comments, Richard, it’s all sp*m…
A.L.
Yeah, but aren’t the spammers simply going to revert to sending descriptions of all the opportunities one has to “play B1NG0 at their CAS1N0S”? You know, the same guys who offer to sell me “V1A-GRA” and products which are guaranteed to enlarge my “PENN1S” (and even better, offer to sell my wife products to enlarge HER PENN1S)?
_OK, now, anyone out there want to tell me what THEY paid for summer camp for two kids last year?
Or piano lessons?_
How about we find a family with an average household income of $31,932 and ask them that question. Or how about ask how many of them can afford piano lessons; let alone pay for them. You seem to be deliberately missing the point. It’s not the huge cost; it’s the huge disconect between speaker and audience. It’s the pole sticking in Gallery Guy’s eye when he complains about how stupid people are not to have his point of view.
#43: Move and countermove, Mr Gould-Saltman. No method is perfect. We do what we can to keep the noise level down.