"The Best Man"
Within the next few weeks, the two major political parties of our great nation will be convening to nominate two unelectable candidates. One of whom will become the next president of the United States. Traditionally, I enjoy rewatching the 1964 Henry Fonda film (adapted from his play of the same name by Gore Vidal) 'The Best Man' at this point in the election cycle. But not this year.
The ironic thing is that at some point a few short months ago (though it seems a lifetime now), I was genuinely excited at the prospect of the candidacies of both John McCain and Barrack Obama. It seemed like a win-win situation; a break with both the Bush and Clinton dynasties that had begun to make our republic resemble that of Argentina, brought about by a pair of genuinely unconventional politicians who appeared, at least initially, to have put aside the politics of the past. That was before either man actually started campaigning.
It's natural, of course, that a general election changes the dynamics of everything, forcing any candidate to 'triangulate to the center', 'flip-flop', release noxious campaign ads, and make all the traditional adjustments excoriated by both bases. I expected that. What I didn't expect was that, even before either man was actually nominated, the atomic half-life of my high hopes for both men would have sunk to toxic levels. Is this entirely fair? No, not at all. I'm sure that both men still have a lot to recommend them on a personal level. McCain is apparently personally charming, Obama certainly publicly so, though one of them cannot seemingly speak in front of a teleprompter, the other without one. McCain is a genuine war hero, Obama a genuine...well, lawyer. Both men have shown petulance, ill-temper, and poor judgement on the campaign trail (in my opinion), conducting spiteful vendettas against reporters, denying access to others, banishing hostile signs at speaking engagements. One has joked about rape, the other calls women 'sweetie' ("I have a problem with that". I don't). Both have been publicly treacherous, instantly contradicting or even disowning longtime political allies, surrogates, friends, even family members when convenient.
Frankly, it is this latter quality that makes me doubt that either man has the temperament to be be a good president. Heaven knows the decks will be stacked enough against the eventual winner--he will have to rapidly deal with a failing economy, an ongoing oil crisis, military commitments overseas, a radicalizing Pakistan, an aggressive Russia, a nuclear Iran...the list goes on and on. Neither man has given me the slightest confidence in his ability to handle these issues. McCain misspeaks first, thinks second, Obama consults with an advisory board of 50 (supposedly including his 'closest advisor', the actor George Clooney) before speaking at all, then each changes his positions a half-dozen times. I have said before, and I'll say again, that whoever wins this election will rapidly become the most unpopular president in recent history. The polls reflect that already--neither man has managed a majority in them (even Dukakis briefly attained that at this point in the election cycle), and both (perhaps unfairly) carry a heavy burden of negative image.
It seems certain that the Democrats will easily dominate both houses of the next Congress. So far, the Reid-Pelosi leadership has given promise of being every bit as corrupt and foolhardy as the Republican congresses it has replaced, and I might be tempted to vote for McCain merely as a brake against the legislative damage it will no doubt do--just as I would for Obama if the corrupt old 'bridge-to-nowhere' Republican congress were likely to be reinstated. But again, given his inconsistency and over-weening vanity, neither man can be trusted even in that role.
So where does that leave me? With about 10% of the voters in every single national poll--indifferent, or should I say passively accepting of the blunders, missteps, and economic disasters that lie ahead thanks to the nomination by both parties of two men almost supernaturally unqualified for the position. Two men who, again merely in my opinion, make the Bushes, the Gores, the Doles, the Carters, even the Johnsons and the Nixons of the past look like statesmen and bluff and hearty good fellows. The only thing that could possibly goad me into voting in November is outrage--the sort sometimes provided by the words and actions of the supporters of either man. Irrational? Maybe. But so is the adherence of some of the Obama partisans (I'm not sure McCain actually has any) on the blogosphere, who seek to turn every issue--often those having nothing to do with the election--into a plus for their man and a stick to beat his opponent--and me--with. Many Clinton supporters know exactly what I mean.
Several times in the past I've alluded to my 'objectivity' here when attacked for daring to criticize Obama's campaign tactics (which I should point out have kept his numbers mired in the mid-40s pollwise). Trust me, I'm bleakly and sadly objective. Nothing would please me more than if I were not. Nothing would please me more than to watch Harold Ford debating with Bobby Jindal instead--or Martin O'Malley with Sarah Palin. I'd love to fast-forward four years. There are dozens of candidates I would vote for sooner than those on the ballot. I'm not happy or proud to be unknowingly stuck in the same statistical camp with all the crazies, the Paul fanatics, Bob Barr, Ralph Nader, Pat Buchanan or the dad of that guy you know from college who writes his own name in every 4 years...ugh. But the two men you've given me to choose between are even crazier. One of them has, with his daughters sitting in his lap sometimes, smiled and nodded at Black Liberation Theology every Sunday for twenty years--the other has been publicly raging at and letting down those closest to him for at least that long while he squirmed in the pew.
'The Best Man' featured a pair of candidates rather like these two in temperament. But they both lost the nomination.
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
- Kierkegaard's blog
- Login or register to post comments
I've been wrestling with the question of whether or not NOT voting for president is necessarily less patriotic and/or failing to fulfill one's civic duty. I'm leaning toward considering it a legitimate signal to candidates that could affect their political calculus just as could voting for them or for their opponent, and thus it can be just as patriotic and civic-minded.
And I'm very seriously considering it this time around.
One guy
- just seems far too inexperienced to be president with the huge war / national security / foreign policy issues we face plus (secondarily) the increasing urgency of addressing our long-term fiscal imbalance.
- wants to spend too much, and with a favorable Congress, he might be able to get much of it -- and in general, has no responsible plan for substantially mitigating our long-term fiscal imbalance and has even tied his own hands to a large extent with his promises.
- has a questionable commitment to free-trade (and if not, he has demogogued the issue disingenuously).
- to the extent that his Iraq policy can be discerned since his deliberate ambiguity began one month ago, his position is to announce and implement withdrawal from Iraq per a (roughly) fixed timetable regardless of anticiapated impact on stability, which I consider unwise.
The other guy
- wants reckless tax cuts (and several months ago repeated with emphasis the myth that tax cuts always increase revenues) -- and in general, has no responsible plan for substantially mitigating our long-term fiscal imbalance and has even tied his own hands to a large extent with his promises.
- wants unconditional full commitment to the war effort in Iraq (meaning even if the Iraqi politicians don't get in gear on key aspects of reconciliation), and has a disturbing emphasis on not leaving Iraq until we can do so "with honor" after "winning"
- sometimes seems confused about important facts (e.g., Iran training al Qaeda)
- can't even seem to run a competent campaign (pointing to potential lack of executive skills, and in some cases, common sense)
- has sucked up to the Christian right on social issues
- has used campaign tactics and messages that are so obviously seeking to exploit ignorance that the guy is just plain making it too embarrassing to vote for him.
I'm probably leaving some stuff out, but that's off the top of my head...and venting like steam out my ears.
I guess it's too much to ask for a candidate who would be honest about our fiscal outlook and would present a responsible fiscal plan that included both substantial tax increases and substantial cuts in projected spending, who would take a practical approach to Iraq (essentially offering continued strong support, but contingent upon real progress toward reconciliation), keeping Evangelicals from telling everyone what they must do and cannot do, respectively...etc.
- Login or register to post comments
)"I'm going to take more of your money and give you less stuff..."
"...while puncturing your cherished myth that America transcends history..."
"...and I hate Jesus. So, my fellow Americans, I'm here to ask for your vote."
--The other day I heard that ignorance and apathy are sweeping the country. I didn't know that, but I don't really care.
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )Right track wrong track numbers alone show this.. That McCain is not getting blown out is only generational. It shows IMHO that the only way for him to win is a scorced earth campaign.. Which has started for better or worse. It is not honest IMHO. It is true they all parse each others comments etc.. like the 100 year war etc. Still that is different IMHO than the attacks Obama has gotten of late. Still some enjoy the great game I tire of the talking heads and the spin...
--Ask courageous questions. Do not be satisfied with superficial answers. Be open to wonder and at the same time subject all claims to knowledge, without exception, to intense skeptical scrutiny. Be aware of human fallibility. Cherish your species and your
- Login or register to post comments
)I got a kick out of this exchange in a 5/08 interview:
Me: You had a calling. You knew what you wanted to do from an early age -- you needed to write. So many people today in the world suffer because they have no calling. They don’t know where their place is, what they should be doing.
Gore: Who gives a f**k?
http://www.esquire.com/features/what-ive-learned/gore-vidal-background-0...
- Login or register to post comments
)From Josh Marshall:
Imagine if Obama had spent the last week like this. The phone contact, the saber rattling, sending his own delegation into the region. Are you kidding? The right wing blogosphere would rise up as one while their heads exploded. And that includes a few folks in here.
--To think is not enough; you must think of something -- Jules Renard
- Login or register to post comments
)of how Obama spent his last week?
Sort of like Bush in Crawford, Texas ;)
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )What do I win?
--In the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is king.
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )One, way too late.
Two, way too wingtardy.
Three, really? Really? Hello? Sean Hannity?
Four, I'm assuming you prefer Senator Strangelove's Excellent Adventure.
Color me, I must confess, moderately surprised.
--To think is not enough; you must think of something -- Jules Renard
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )Obama is an effete elitist because he enjoys bodysurfing, while McCain is the salt of the Earth because he hosts barbecues for the national press at one of his half a dozen or so
--mansionssolidly middle class homes. They've been using the same theme for thirty years, haven't you got it yet?I blame it all on the Internet
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )Bear in mind, wingtards have been bleating about Obama's vacation choice all week, as if Hawaii wasn't actually part of the United States. Given that tomsyl, you know, actually lives there?
Hey. It's the silly season after all.
--To think is not enough; you must think of something -- Jules Renard
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )tomsyl often likes to throw stuff out to see who bites. He usually has an "aha" up his sleeve.
--I blame it all on the Internet
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )I just got back here and the news was he's staying down the street in Kailua; the local papers showed him bodysurfing at a nearby beach. I wouldn't know if Fox used my observations as a source, since I don't watch H&C etc, so I'll have to defer to regular viewers like Harley. Anyhoo, if facts are now "wingtardy" (really, Harley, that term's become the epitome of lameness), I guess that means something.
The only "aha" here is that my six-word post loosened Harley's vowels to the point where he was almost voluble.
--In the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is king.
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )Following McCain's lead and sending a shadow embassy to Georgia while calling overwrought, saber-rattling press conferences? I'll take the President who goes on vacation, thanks.
--The other day I heard that ignorance and apathy are sweeping the country. I didn't know that, but I don't really care.
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )He took a well-deserved week. Which I find preferable to McCain's doddering bluster on fully display.
--To think is not enough; you must think of something -- Jules Renard
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )If not, then what in the bleep is McCain talking about?
--Fence post turtles -- They don't get up there by themselves, some moron had to put 'em there.
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )Why not ask a Republican?
This is an example of the sort of attitude I was complaining about earlier: "Obama good--everybody else bad". If I'm not for Obama then I must be for his opponent, in your mind.
Watch out, that's often a self-fulfilling prophecy.
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )This is a zero sum game. You for one or you're for the other. Comparisons are not only entirely relevant, they're sorta how this works.
So stop yer whining and pick a horse. Then ride.
--To think is not enough; you must think of something -- Jules Renard
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )Oh, you mean like with Islam vs the West? Coerce an answer if someone doesn't have one?
Sounds to me like you're getting in the mood for your convention.
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )As this diary suggests you're getting in the mood for your own. A smaller convention, to be honest. But the cocktails are probably better. And then there's all that porn...
:)
--To think is not enough; you must think of something -- Jules Renard
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )The fruits of your labors-- http://www.gallup.com/poll/109564/Gallup-Daily-McCain-Obama-Tied-44.aspx
My convention is now up to 12% of the voters. And growing. How's yours going?
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )The Gallup daily tracking poll remains fairly constant. Obama up close to ten after the Europe trip. Obama coming back down to earth when the mud started flying. Obama up close to seven. Obama coming back down to today's tie.
What's constant? McCain never gets above 44 percent. The only number that moves is Senator Obama's. And, I'm guessing, it will move back up shortly. Probably tomorrow.
My convention is going fine, thanks. The other convention is doing pretty well too. Both populated by people who set aside their own notions of intellectual superiority long enough to make judgments based on rather clear differences between two political candidates and then decide to support one of them. Heck. It's the American way.
--To think is not enough; you must think of something -- Jules Renard
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )Right back to the whole point of this debate. There are no 'clear differences' between the candidates any more. They have both changed their positions so many times on nearly every key policy detail, that their future positions on anything can no longer be trusted.
As for 'cherry-picking': high praise indeed coming from you.
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )Well, on fiscal policy, here's one valid, albeit odd and somewhat pathetic, reason to elect McCain:
Both candidates have promised fiscal policies would make our already awful long-term fiscal outlook significantly worse, BUT with a Democratic Congress, Obama is more likely to get a substantial amount of his promises enacted.
So I hereby offer the McCain campaign the following slogan, pro bono:
"VOTE MCCAIN: HE CAN'T DO AS MUCH DAMAGE!"
Yeah, yeah, I know, wars cost money and yadda yadda. But the point is still largely valid. In reality, a President McCain would probably (not close to certainly, just pobably) do less fiscal damage than a President Obama, because McCain would be less successful legislatively.
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )'He will slow down the rate at which things are getting worse'
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )Doesn't sound like what I'm saying. I'm saying McCain can't do as much damage despite his efforts (which, if successful, would do MORE damage). Sounds like you mean that the rate of decline would be lower because of Obama's efforts.
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )As TR said:
Pick a side man. Obama might not be FDR and McCain might not be Lincoln but one of them is going to be President. It isn't a matter of picking the best man it is a matter of picking the better one.
--But she's a queen, and such are queens
that your laughter is sucked in their brains. -D. Bowie
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )Astounding once again to see how things appear from your side of the aisle. There are very significant differences not only between the candidates, but more importantly (much more importantly) between the parties. From where I'm sitting.
--Before you criticize someone, you should walk a mile in their shoes. That way when you criticize them, you're a mile away and you have their shoes. -JH
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )no. They're both pork-happy, corrupt, ear-markers. Obama is as bad as any from that standpoint, McCain only recently 'pure' because of the Keating 5.
Anyone who can seriously point to either party or either candidate with pride at this point is either being naive or self-serving. I'm proud to belong to neither 'side of the aisle'.
"None of the above" is the only honest choice this year.
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )Iran and Russia. I don't point to either candidate with pride -- for me it's a clear distinction between 8 more years of progressively more demented ideological fanaticism and regular old corruption.
--Before you criticize someone, you should walk a mile in their shoes. That way when you criticize them, you're a mile away and you have their shoes. -JH
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )in 2000 and 2004?
--GW Bush, leading contender for worst President ever.
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )b/c I thought the candidates were roughly equivalent.
Whoops. Not going to make that mistake again.
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )I'm trying to discern if K is headed for the same mistake this once, or if dancing in the aisle before pulling the pulling the lever for the R is a perennial routine. Additionally, if all our politicians were merely pork-happy, corrupt, ear-markers, that would be the least of our problems.
--GW Bush, leading contender for worst President ever.
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )With all due respect, that's a hyperbolic, not to mention demonstrably false, statement. On every key policy detail? I'm no McCain fan, but I wouldn't even accuse him of that. This is simply an example of when one's desire for singularity trumps both common sense and reality.
It makes for an entertaining read, as stated. But it's an unfortunately self-limiting world view. Hyperbole is merely its engine.
Oh. And 'cherry picking' refers, and quite specifically, to your choosing the single Gallup poll out of the last forty that helps to make your case. After your previous, uhm, difficulty regarding the accuracy of a cited poll -- 59 percent! -- I'd think you'd stay clear of numbers.
--To think is not enough; you must think of something -- Jules Renard
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )yes.
It's just a poll, and not a fact. But the fact that it exists is called an 'inconvenient truth', Harley. You should know all about those.
Your guy should be ahead by 20 or 30 right now.
Discussion?
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )You ignored the point that's getting you batted about in this thread.
Others have asked for examples. I'll simply repeat that this is hyperbole in the service of a, well, self-serving political position. There may be reasons for voting 'none of the above.' You, however, have failed to give a single one.
As for the poll. This is a three-day rolling average. I'll let Matt Yglesias explain what that means -- cuz if you knew? You wouldn't cite this as dispositive of anything.
Does that help? Statistical noise in a stable race. That my guy, thus far, is leading. Here's some more helpful information for you.
So. Becuz Gallup uses a three-day average, rather than, as mentioned, a ten-day, you get all kinds of peaks and valleys that tend to get folks a little more excited than they should be.
Now, allow me to anticipate your rejoinder. And it's based on this moderately looney supposition:
First, that's just nutty. Nobody is ahead by 20 or 30 at this point in an election. Second, Obama shares identical structural advantages with one recent presidential aspirant. And that would be Ronald Reagan. Like Obama, Reagan was viewed as inexperienced, and possibly not ready for the Oval Office. That's why, and I'm going to bold this in order to help you further, his polling numbers were basically the same as Obama's at this time in the campaign. It was not until the debates that Reagan 'closed the deal.' In other words, he convinced the viewers that he was as presidential or more than his opponent. This in and of itself would not guarantee the result. But the structural advantages he benefited from kicked in shortly thereafter.
I'm not saying history will repeat itself. But there remains a very good chance that it will. That's why McCain was so desperate for a town hall meeting every week and the Obama campaign wisely decided not to play. Because all those town halls would dilute the impact of the official debates in the fall.
And last, assuming that a presidential candidate should be ahead by the same numbers as the generic Dem vs. Repub numbers shows either a lazy analytical approach or an only passing familiarity with the process. There are many reasons Obama does not have the same lead, first and foremost? That McCain is not seen as a generic Republican. The current Obama/Dem ad campaign is designed expressly to counter that perception.
Thus ends the discussion.
--To think is not enough; you must think of something -- Jules Renard
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )Per you:
Because all those town halls would dilute the impact of the official debates in the fall.
Moderately clever but still weak. Besides being reactive, Obama's speeches are well-scripted, obviously. But every now and then a misstatement slips in, and Obama has a helluva time explaining what he (or his speechwriter) meant. A bit of a deer in the headlights effect, but easily missed if you read a transcript inst4ead of listening to the audio.
Maybe I haven't watched the guy as closely as you have, but my strong impression is that Obama doesn't do spontaneity; too many trips and traps for a tyro. Town hall meetings (even with Hillaryesque planted gay officers) present too much of a risk.
Give me some examples of genuine, unscripted A's to Q's by your guy and maybe I'll recant. I think he's avoiding the town hall format because he's afraid of it, and because the media fawns can't control that environment completely and promise him immunity from awkward questions.
BTW, there are some nice AP shots of him bodysurfing near here while the situation in Georgia develops. Guess it'll keep while a speech is written with something more definite in it than "both sides should talk this out." Neat preemption by Rice of Russia appeasement if O gets elected, too, by saying that the Russians will have damaged their relationship with us "for years" if they don't withdraw now.
--In the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is king.
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )on or off teleprompter, I would think. People who meet George Bush in person claim he's charming & likable. I've only seen him on TV, where he seems to have a 500 word vocabulary and an angry gas attendant's comprehension of global affairs.
--Before you criticize someone, you should walk a mile in their shoes. That way when you criticize them, you're a mile away and you have their shoes. -JH
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )I’d say Bush is generally much better than McCain at the prepared speeches, creating more of an impression that he just might have a clue what he's talking about. Watch this:
And contrast the above with this statement presentation by McCain, which combines the oratory quality of a grade school index-card-clutching oral book report, a hostage's forced on-camera statement, and Bernie of "Weekend at Bernie's".
Not to mention this aspect of that same statement – from a guy whose whole purpose in making the statement is to appear more familiar and knowledgeable with such matters (and whose candidacy is mainly based on that argument)
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )Not that you're supposed to, btw. But Obama actually does fairly well in town hall meetings, cripes, most pols do, it's the easiest possible environment, moderately starstruck voters lobbing softball questions and settling for canned responses. That's why McCain likes them so much. It's a walk in the park.
The 'media fawns' line suggests you didn't catch most of the actual debates either. That's where Obama has been inconsistent, and it's where he's received the tougher questions. Pennsylvania being the most obvious example.
Here's a town hall snippet:
Again, it ain't all that hard. But Obama tends to be very relaxed, thoughtful, and he doesn't grimace/smile at weird times like McCain. However, he sometimes gets flustered at debates, particularly when attacked personally. I guarantee the latter is part of the McCain debate strategy, and I don't blame them.
As for the family vacation in Hawaii -- please don't latch onto body surfing like some vapid ditto-head -- it seems fairly pro forma to me. I would think McCain's attempt at parallel foreign policy, complete with sending his own delegation to the region, would trouble you more. (Jon Stewart had fun with this, reminding his audience that he had as much authority in this as McCain does, and that he was sending Don Rickles to the region.) And believe me, if Obama had done this? You'd be shouting about presumption and the fact that he's not president yet. Seems to me the same criticism can be leveled at McCain.
--To think is not enough; you must think of something -- Jules Renard
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )I know that from having to scrape them off the skeg of my surfboard when I was a sallow yute. Nothing wrong with it at all, if you choose the right beach; the wrong one can leave you with a broken neck, which is why some are off-limits to servicemen and women. It's not a high-society sport; nor is kite-surfing, at least here.
BO's trip here apparently was laced with local appearances; a waste of time IMO as he owns the vote here because he's a Democrat. I can't give you first-hand impressions because I coincidentally was out of the state for most of his trip here; I'll report to you if I see him shooting hoops in Lanikai Park, though - promise.
Although it may have been defused yesterday, the Russia/Georgia conflict had the potential to be the biggest foreign policy issue of the year, so no one gets points for sitting on the sideline. AFA your take on McCain sticking his nose in where he supposedly shouldn't, what was your position when Pelosi went to Syria to high-five Assad?
AFA preemptive foreign policy, I still haven't gotten your response to Rice's apparent attempt to set the parameters of Russia/US relations "for years" w/r/t former contiguous satellites. I can't be the only one who saw that.
--In the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is king.
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )but he's actually pretty good in townhalls.
There have been a few incidents in which he was confronted with hecklers and he handled them reasonably gracefully (1, 2).
--Come, my friends. 'Tis not too late to seek a newer world -- Tennyson
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )Link.
--In the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is king.
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )McCain *was not* in fact in the "cone of silence" as advertised at the time. Consequently, McCain did have access to some of the questions in advance. Whether he took advantage of that access is something only he can answer (plus whoever was with him the whole time). However, at the very least it appears he was supposed to be at the location before Obama began, and he wasn't; that would make the McCain campaign objectively at fault here.
And for the record the Obama campaign has stated publicly that they are assuming McCain had the same access to questions they did.
--Come, my friends. 'Tis not too late to seek a newer world -- Tennyson
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )My take:
- I don't think anyone disputes that McCain was not in a "cone of silence" -- i.e., at the venue, or for that matter in any other place where it could be assured that he could not hear the Obama interview. If the McCain campaign could prove somehow that he could not have heard it, or had impartial witnesses that are free to speak who could confirm that he did not listen to it, I assume they would have produced that evidence. Instead, all they've said is that he was in a motorcade and with secret service. To which I say, "And...? Does that mean he couldn't have heard, and if so, why, or who can confirm that he didn't listen to it?"
- Warren's references to McCain having been in a "cone of silence" were incorrect and misleading, whether deliberate or not (and he later claimed "not").
- I haven't seen the MTP video (yet), so I don't know Mitchell's tone, but straight reporting could have included (1) an account of McCain's whereabouts and related information with implications for the potential/likelihood for him having heard part of the Obama interview, (2) the Obama campaign's assertions, assuming they are plausible (which they seem to be), and (3) the misleading nature of Warren's references to the "cone of silence". BUT where Mitchell MAY (depending partly on her tone) have departed from straight reporting (which is far from taboo, by the way, particularly on an opinion and analysis show like MTP) and MAY have been unfair to McCain is in implying a strong connection -- a high likelihood -- that McCain had indeed heard some of the Obama interview and that McCain's strong performance could be largely attributed to his having done so.
- Given, from what I've heard/read, McCain arrived about a half hour late (or whatever time period it was), I think it would be interesting to nail down what was the most of the Obama interview McCain could have possibly heard and compare the quality of McCain's answers to the corresponding questions for that portion vs. for the balance.
[edit below]
Also, it wouldn't even be enough to prove the McCain couldn't have (or didn't) listen. Others in his campaign could have, and then told McCain and/or advised him based on having heard the questions, Obama's answers and reactions. In fact, all it would take is one member of the team being willing to listen to the radio and then advise McCain at the last minute, with or without McCain knowing that that person had listend in, for there to have been an advantage gained from McCain's absence from the "cone of silence".
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )further add that I think this is the right response from the Obama camp:
Come, my friends. 'Tis not too late to seek a newer world -- Tennyson
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )That might be the right response politically (or not), but they certainly do NOT have to make that assumption, and it would not be unreasonable at all for them to raise the possibility of McCain having heard part of the Obama interview.
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )He does much better on policy than the so called silly season questions...
Tax policy
Health-care
environment/energy
Iraq
The difference between McCain and Clinton is as stark
as Obama and McCain...
I also don't put McCain in Hillary's class as far as debating... She is pretty good on policy facts etc...
I don't put much into the debates in general IMHO Kerry killed Bush in all Three and it made little difference...
--The public is in a different place now so it might be different...
Ask courageous questions. Do not be satisfied with superficial answers. Be open to wonder and at the same time subject all claims to knowledge, without exception, to intense skeptical scrutiny. Be aware of human fallibility. Cherish your species and your
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )Hillary is brutal in debates, always on message, unflappable, and willing to stick the knife in when necessary. Tough stuff. McCain is wildly inconsistent. He can seem robotic, off-message, and some times just plain weird. (The inappropriate smile!) Also in terms of the TV of it all, he's going to look like a little old man when standing next to Obama. That's why his camp is only allowing one podium debate of the three.
--To think is not enough; you must think of something -- Jules Renard
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )IMO the first tiny crack in the HRC monolith was her refusal to answer Tim Russert's questions on whether she backed Spitzer's plan to give drivers' licenses to illegals in NY state. She almost broke her tranny shifting into reverse, then neutral; her backers claimed that it was a "complex" question and Russert didn't give her enough time to respond. Meaning, of course, to do the math on the for/against numbers with Hispanic supporters before she decided where her principles would lead her.
Is it just my imagination, or did the amount of the Clintons' loan to their campaign almost exactly equal the amount Mark Penn was paid?
--In the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is king.
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )Tell me you by into the two of them doing them together? McCain's are more like bushes... Closed to tough questions.... Obama's might be also but I am not so sure...
--Ask courageous questions. Do not be satisfied with superficial answers. Be open to wonder and at the same time subject all claims to knowledge, without exception, to intense skeptical scrutiny. Be aware of human fallibility. Cherish your species and your
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )regardless of the forum. That's more likely in town hall formats (though as we saw with the Clinton campaign in the YouTube debate, those can be gamed as well with audience plants).
Both candidates have extensive website statements on every conceivable policy issue, so there's no reason to give them airtime to recite the same predigested pap. The ability to reason under pressure, express yourself coherently, and think on your feet seems much more of a test of Presidential mettle; Obamafans here sound so sure of their guy's ability to best McCain in that context that I assumed they would be clamoring for TH exposure.
--In the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is king.
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )Taking each candidate in turn, in your eyes which significant reversal of positions has most damaged the credibility of each?
--GW Bush, leading contender for worst President ever.
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )Because when went it up in recent comments, I was trying to find what on earth it was referring to and couldn't figure it out.
--“I serve as a blank screen on which people of vastly different political stripes project their own views.”
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )proving that experience absent sound judgment is often overrated:
That and the fact that cognitive dissonance and short term memory loss would likely debilitate any McCain Presidency.
--GW Bush, leading contender for worst President ever.
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )You have the chance to vote for Len Peltier! An inmate at some federal pen. I can imagine state dinners, with guests squeezed together on his bunk, metal plates balanced delicately on their laps.
--Nothing resembles virtue more than a great crime. Saint-Just
- Login or register to post comments
)and the modern GOP that spawned him?
That's the one gets my vote.
Obama unlike Shrub, has already shown he has the capacity to grow during the campaign and I fully expect him to similarly grow in the office as have many of our best Presidents. McCain has given every indication that he is the more likely to decline (figuratively and literally) once ensconced in the office, placing the greater risk of significant downside potential to his Presidency over Obama's.
Oh, and given all the 'objectivity' displayed in your diary, it's a given that Obama needs to work more on the older portion of the electorate. Unlike your diary, it's my opinion he can best do this in stark contrast to McCain, by concentrating on the issues important to the electorate.
--GW Bush, leading contender for worst President ever.
- Login or register to post comments
)in this election than you see in the current Oval Office. Carter was naive & somewhat dangerous in foreign policy. But under Bush US foreign policy has regressed to something equivalent to Lord of the Flies. Never have we launched a foreign adventure so driven by and carried out according to the whims of such unadulterated and damp-eyed naivete. Iraq today is the home of a million pet projects hatched but never fledged in Pentagon and Soggy Bottom basements, all of it overrun with corrupt incompetence and zero leadership.
I don't know how you can imagine change can be anything but an improvement at this point, if only as a regression to the mean. Once again I'm alarmed by the gap in our respective views on the basic facts and, in this case, I can only pray you're the one who's got it wrong. IMO even McCain would be an improvement on Bush, though I fear he's now too beholden to the Cheneyites to do the kind of housecleaning that needs to get done.
--Before you criticize someone, you should walk a mile in their shoes. That way when you criticize them, you're a mile away and you have their shoes. -JH
- Login or register to post comments
)but (swallow) in Bush's defense...
He has grown in office. His Iraq policy has matured. His Korea policy has matured. Condi is preferable to a Colin Powell under the thumb of the so-called vulcans. Gates is way preferable to Rumsfeld. Paulson is preferable to a weak O'Neill.
And it looks like all the people that are whispering in McCain's ear are the ones that failed us in Iraq. Moreover, McCain has a bit of the Capt. Queeg temperament. I fear he is capable of committing the nation to an idealistic but foolish course.
--More Wagster!
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )over a much shorter period and he hasn't even taken office yet, while McCain is headed in the opposite direction.
--GW Bush, leading contender for worst President ever.
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )...
--More Wagster!
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )sorry, I don't see it. If he had tried policies at random he would have done a better job.
--I blame it all on the Internet
- Login or register to post comments
| parent ).
--Before you criticize someone, you should walk a mile in their shoes. That way when you criticize them, you're a mile away and you have their shoes. -JH
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )You mean he's even taller? ;)
- Login or register to post comments
| parent ).
--Before you criticize someone, you should walk a mile in their shoes. That way when you criticize them, you're a mile away and you have their shoes. -JH
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )Perhaps that is the explanation. Also, the whisperers need to abandon Bush now that he is a lame duck.
--Fence post turtles -- They don't get up there by themselves, some moron had to put 'em there.
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )In “The Best Man”, there’s a wonderful bit where Lee Tracy playing the outgoing president says: “Power is not a toy we give to good children. It is a weapon. And the strong man takes it and uses it. If you don't go down there and beat Joe Cantwell to the floor with this very dirty stick, then you've got no business in the big league. Because if you don't fight, the job is not for you. And it never will be.”
Disillusion is what happens when our dreams collide with reality. Politicians seek power because they want to use that weapon to fight what they consider the Good Fight. But a Good Fight is a contradiction in terms: all fights require the nastiness you loudly decry in this excellent piece. All presidents eventually find themselves alone in the Oval Office. I wonder what that must be like, to realize you’re the most powerful man in the world, but completely beholden to a political machine which threw all that money in your direction. He still has to deal with Congress, even with a veto-proof majority he has to deal with dozens of senators: each one has an ego as big as his own. He has to live in the bubble, willy-nilly, and his every word is news.
Obama’s a bit of a Hamlet. I suspect he will be a better president than you might believe at present moment. He’s younger than his friends and foes in the Congress. He sees them for what they are: he’s got a great gift of introspection. If his prayer at the Wailing Wall is any guide to his character, he’s aware of his shortcomings. He knows his own lust for power, but his is still malleable. Experience is both an asset and liability: as someone who teaches software and consults for a living, I despair of Old Farts telling war stories about how they did everything on punch cards. Experience is no guide in a job requiring digesting vast amount of information and reacting appropriately: where each day brings fresh evils, experience is no guide at all, and can be a great liability. This does not mean the naïve are any less prone to make bad decisions, but Obama is far too wily and circumspect to rush to judgment.
McCain is on his last legs, his desperation is showing. I strongly distrust the man, for many reasons. I have enumerated them before. In short, I find his choleric temperament and brittle character are liabilities in an office requiring sound judgment and management skills. The McCain of 2000 was more to my liking than the McCain of 2008. McCain will rush to judgment, and that is a fatal flaw in a president.
Pay no attention to the campaign. Campaigns are all songs and flags and hoopla and cheap sloganeering, like a barker pulling the rubes in, hubba-hubba-hubba. The reality of governing is the dullest of prose, well suited to the lawyer. You like Harold Ford, and I do, too. I shall never forget his shouting at that vicious little trollop Jean Schmidt after she maligned Jack Murtha on the floor of the House. Ford’s run for the Senate was one of the dirtiest in modern history, even Corker his opponent was aghast at the viciousness exhibited by the Republican Party. We have not heard the last of Harold Ford Jr.
You’re not stuck in any camp, K. The country will get one of these bozos, and it deserves its fate. Hopeful inexperience pitted against the last hurrah, and both of them willing to say anything to get elected.
I will vote for Obama, with the full understanding he will be a vastly different man than he seems. I will not vote for John McCain, because he's exactly what he seems to be.
- Login or register to post comments
)Hamlet would have made a terrible king. In realpolitikal terms the bloodbath at the end was the best possible electoral solution for the long-suffering burghers of Copenhagen. Obviously, very little actual governing was getting done at that palace ;)
I think your faith in Obama is exactly that--a leap of faith. The more I get to know of him, the more appalled I am at his hubristic vanity and star-struck hobnobbing. His campaign over the last few weeks has resembled a Hollywood PR agency negotiating a series of studio deals and tabloid interviews. I realize that McCain's people went way over the top with the 'celebrity' ad--but it was effective because it reinforced an impression the public already had. McCain may be old and yet immature, but Obama is simply callow--and will never mature. Like Gary Hart or Dan Quayle, he will just become a wizened boy someday.
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )My point being, Hamlet's excruciatingly aware of his own predicament, and the predicament of others.
I don't see Obama as callow, having read his books, but perhaps you see things I don't in him. There's no such thing as objectivity, I'm coming to believe as I grow older. Sometimes the only opinions worth considering are those of your enemies, as Hamlet learned from Laertes.
As for the showbiz angle, John McCain has damned near broken his arm patting himself on the back through the years. Self-praising War Heroes are the epitome of vanity. My war heroes are mostly dead men, and a few brave guys who exhibited courage and fortitude when it mattered, and few will remember their names. John McCain's honor is besmirched in several places, and I do not consider him an honorable man.
I repeat myself in saying we know who McCain is, and he is manifestly unsuited to the Executive.
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )...nice return & volley.
It is the Olympics after all.
Game metaphors abound.
Best Wishes, Traveller
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )But this statement...
Suggests that your opinion is turbo-charged with a healthy amount of exaggeration. Which is, I suppose, one of the things that makes this, however hyperbolic, an enjoyable read.
Whether or not you're correct in your assumptions is of course beside the point.
--To think is not enough; you must think of something -- Jules Renard
- Login or register to post comments
)We're all made up ;)
And you're right--sheer hyperbole. But I have a really bad feeling about either man in the White House.
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )...enough to make you gwaff out loud.
(I whish to god, small "g", {it's a very small wish}, that I could spell gwaff...I sense that this is becoming an increasingly useful word, and I can't ever spell it right)
Best Wishes, Traveller
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )Never heard it before. Trav ;) Is it a cross between a gag and a laugh?
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )Traveller
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )I wouldn't think so.
- Login or register to post comments
);)
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )And it's a shame there's probably no direct correlation between the two, since an exponentially increasing disdain for a 'toxic' political atmosphere woulda captured the sentiment nicely.
Anyway, you strike me as mostly sick of the general.
From my PoV, Obama being a 'transformational' Reaganesque leader looks far away.
When BO's campaign has any substance at all, I get the impression of an anemic foreign policy hawk and economic critic who essentially accepts conservative suppositions.
At least Hillary might've been stumping about healthcare right now.
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )the mere fact that we're thinking benign thoughts about Hillary at all shows just how miserable our choices now seem...
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )...never have I read anything finer...the word structures are magnificent...pictures are painted in my mind in every sentence...and, you've captured the Zeitgeist our current time...Small Men Being Small.
You know I love reading Balise, right or wrong for the knowledge he possesses, but this is there, this nails it down...without equivocation.
Thank you!
Best Wishes, Traveller
- Login or register to post comments
)but I'm going to trust that K can handle a counter opinion just fine.
The writing is nice. The content is trite and stale, just another rambling rant lamenting the oh-so-flawed candidates. Such vacuous sentiments (if less finely dressed) are expressed daily in blogs nobody reads and in coffee houses to captive audiences struggling to feign interest.
There is quite simply nothing here beyond glum opinions -- no evidence, no links, no insights, just sour griping.
That someone can look at McCain and Obama and their respective campaigns and construct contrived comparisons rather than note the clear differences demonstrates intellectual laziness rather than the claimed objectivity.
Sorry K, nothing against your post in particular, I'm just sick of the genre. It's paint-by-numbers at this point, and using a more subtle palette of colors doesn't change the picture.
--Come, my friends. 'Tis not too late to seek a newer world -- Tennyson
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )That's how Sen. Obama's speeches come across to many people.
Can't one note the clear differences, yet still come to the conclusion that both options suck the chrome off a '57 El Dorado?
--“I serve as a blank screen on which people of vastly different political stripes project their own views.”
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )Can't one note the clear differences, yet still come to the conclusion that both options suck the chrome off a '57 El Dorado?
How might one go about doing that?
First, one needs a metric for assessing "suck the chrome off a '57 El Dorado." Let's suppose that we grade our candidates in a variety of categories, and in each one we accept "demonstrated incompetence or objectively poor planning" as meeting our standard of suckitude in that category.
Now, we need to weight the importance of each category. So for example Iraq might get a 0.3, the economy 0.3, health care 0.15, energy policy 0.15, the environment 0.05, and "intangibles" 0.05. Some people will obviously have an entirely different idea about how the weights should be distributed, but at least the method chosen needs to be clear so that the merits can be sensibly debated.
The next step is to examine the candidates' record and platform as relates to each category, objectively evaluate same, and describe for readers what grade was assigned and why. The candidates have significant differences on the issues mentioned above, so that would certainly lead them to receive differing reviews within each category. Probably different grades as well, but we will leave open the possibility that for some categories the candidates have different but equally poor prospects.
Finally, one adds it all up and comes to a conclusion, comparing the candidates against a passing grade.
I don't think that was K's goal here, so your comment is rather hypothetical... unless that's your conclusion, and you're interested in laying out your analysis along the above lines.
--Come, my friends. 'Tis not too late to seek a newer world -- Tennyson
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )I've been swamped and I'm just coming back to this. This probably isn't a good answer to your question, but since I don't feel like laying out what I find lacking in each Senator (or reading the 'Sen. X is worse' follow ons) let me tell you something you might find funny.
I so lack enthusiasm for either nominee, and am less than sanguine about the prospect of either being president, that when Wagster posted the diary about McCain's age it made me think, "Maybe that's a point for McCain, if he can't serve 8 years that's not a bad thing."
OK, maybe only I think that's funny, but I doubt it's a reaction Wagster expected.
--“I serve as a blank screen on which people of vastly different political stripes project their own views.”
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )If either are as bad as you think, one would hope they wouldn't win re-election, but of course things don't always work out that way.
Also, I believe your sentiments dovetail nicely with those of the hardcore Hillary supporters on this issue at least. Just wanted to warn you =)
--Come, my friends. 'Tis not too late to seek a newer world -- Tennyson
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )The hard core Hillary supporters would have been happy if one of the three was a nominee. That's where we don't dovetail very well.
--“I serve as a blank screen on which people of vastly