User Comments, Suggestions, or Complaints | Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Advertising
Vivid Seats is a sports ticket broker, concert ticket broker and theater ticket broker offering the best baseball tickets like Yankees tickets, Cubs tickets, and Red Sox tickets, as well as Police reunion tour tickets and Jersey Boys tickets. |
We have baseball tickets, the NFL schedule, college football tickets and Cowboys tickets. We have NBA tickets like Celtics tickets and Lakers tickets. Plus, buy Giants tickets, Patriots tickets and Colts tickets. Also check out our MLB baseball schedule |
Concerts Theatre NFL Angels Dodgers MLB Celtics Theater NBA Tickets Venues NHL Lakers Tickets NFL Yankees NHL Phillies NBA Wicked Marlins MLB Concerts Cubs Mets Red Sox Wicked WWE Red Sox Mets Yankees Dodgers |
Page rendered in 0.8176 seconds
81 querie(s) executed
Reader Comments and Retorts
Go to end of page
Statements posted here are those of our readers and do not represent the BaseballThinkFactory. Names are provided by the poster and are not verified. We ask that posters follow our submission policy. Please report any inappropriate comments.
Damn. See, I was trying for something much more complicated, and that's where I was tripping up. The direct route is always the best.
Matt's argument was very nuanced, but, basically, a large percentage of people very much do not like the direction of the country WRT the two main issues of the day: the economy and the war. So, in spite of the holes in Obama's candidate game, it appears that he is winning.
I would add three other things: first, I am a "pendulum" guy and I think the pendulum is swinging the Democrats' way. If Obama does win, giving the Ds control of the House and WH, I think it will start to swing back the other way, in '10 and/or '12--even if Obama does a pretty good job. Second, I still think baseline personality/personability plays a key role in these elections. Taking ideology entirely out of it, generally speaking, I think the more superficially likable guy has won most elections since the invention of radio. I have read many critcisms of Obama, some of them pretty harsh and personal, but he does not, in general, seem to simply rub large numbers of people the wrong way on a personal level, as Edwards, Gore, Kerry, Dukakis, HClinton and Mondale did/do. Bill Clinton did draw some hate, but I think that was as much his opponents' frustration about his prodigious political talent as anything (as well as his philandering, I suppose)--sort of like Reagan and the Ds.
Watching the first debate (not live--I was at work) I tried to put myself in the place of an older, undecided voter. As Andy said, Obama was not scintillating or brilliant, but he seemed stable, calm, polite, and reasonable--"presidential". The Biden choice reflects this as well--no one is excited about Biden, but I don't think many people who were seriously considering Obama would be turned off by Biden's presence on the ticket enough to vote for McCain or stay home because of it. And Biden may be helping in PA and with some older middle-of-the-road folks.
McCain actually has a pretty good personality, too, but I do think people have noted the tinge of old man anger/surliness that colors his behavior.
The third thing is race, which obviously works against Obama in some respects, but as he himself has noted, very circumspectly, almost parenthetically, helps him in some ways, too.
I remember some of the Republicans here and elsewhere saying that Obama is an absolutely awful candidate, a reflection of "white liberal guilt" and misguided liberal hubris, that the Democrats should have run Hillary, that a "good" candidate would crush McCain, etc. And they may yet be proven right. I will believe Obama has won if I see John McCain on my TV conceding, and not a minute before.
I don't expect any of those people to take me seriously, but I would repeat George Will's warning from a few months ago to his fellow Repubs--don't underestimate Obama. The Democrats chose a well-funded, well-organized, reasonably charismatic candidate, who can give a pretty good speech and seems to stay calm under pressure. And he seems to be winning, although the Town Hall, which has started as I type this, will be a big test.
latest polls indicate the number is 68%, robin.
Srul IIRC suggested that we have "Debate Game Chatters" but I think this crowd likes to watch and then pontificate as opposed to pontificating on the run.
Now you know.
And if the cost of oil goes down, then that will slow the implement of cleaner domestic alternatives.
Obama keeps turning the other cheek.
It ain't working for Obama.
Obama's probably going to win the election.
It's probably working.
Edit: My friends.
I think that's how Dylan Thomas died.
What is the point of a town hall meeting if you ignore the town?
Seriously, why can't the questioner follow up?
McCain sounds very, very old.
edit: Obama just rapped McCain on McCain's fraudulent claim to "talk softly and carry a big stick".
On the website? We don't have a TV...
Well, in that case check out Eureka. Or go to a torrent site.
This is Obama's best and only strategy for tonight. Make McCain look like the desperate one while Obama himself looks cool and presidential. It's just like what Bush did vs. Gore during the 2000 recount mess, and it worked like a charm then, in terms of public opinion.
Remember; the prevent defense with a 14 point lead and 5 minutes left in the game usually does work, as long as the other team doesn't have a superstar quarterback. Right now, McCain is like Ryan Leaf.
Seriously, several times it looked like he was trying to find the men's room or something.
You're risking a president's life!
It's part of Obama's political genius (and I don't use that word casually) that picking Biden, after the fact, seems perfectly dull, perfectly obvious, and perfectly optimal. From the standpoint of winning, if Biden can swing a few points in PA or OH, that could easily be the difference. Who else could Obama have nominated that might swing the election without jeopardizing it?
Not sure what to say about your observations wrt Matt. I think I'll need to read more on structural factors.
I'm not saying that I agree with McCain's position and politics, and I really hated his tendency in follow-ups to immediately restate Obama's solution and pretend it was his own, but he seemed to have a solid verbal performance.
I also thought that Brokaw did just about the worst job of moderating a debate that I've ever had the misfortune to see. There is no way that he should ever be allowed to even attend one of these things again, never mind running it.
EDIT: I also can't believe that McCain stepped into the Bomb, Bomb Iran puddle again.
Boone Pickens is already very rich. He's also correct.
I'd like erstwhile McCain supporter DMN explain his support for the Fed Government buying up everyone's mortgage and resetting it to current market values. I bought a rental property 3 years ago for cash. Can I get $200,000 cash from the fed to make me whole as well? That was the worst thing I've heard in the campaign so far from either side.
I know he didn't set the rules. However, at least to me, it seemed like he would ask the question, wait a bit for one of the candidates to make a move to start replying, and then throw out the name of the other one as the first person with a chance to respond. It just seemed like he was determined to make himself the story.
I also think he should have cut off Obama when Obama asked for a rebuttal, rather than allowing both Obama and McCain to have an extra round of responses. That was a simple matter of his choosing to selectively enforce the rules, outside of his authority.
From the listening, I thought it was pretty much of a draw, and that whichever candidate happened to speak last generally "won" that question. I kind of felt for Brokaw in trying to get them not to drag their answers on past the time limit, but then I generally can't stand these town hall formats to begin with. Give me a moderator like Lehrer, only with the power to keep asking follow up questions for as long as necessary, in order to avoid letting them get away with outright lies, half truths and non sequiturs.
Then when I went upstairs and saw that most of the talking heads on PBS and CNN were scoring it for Obama, I was a bit surprised---until I watched some of the clips. The words may have been roughly even, but the composure and body language "debate" went easily to Obama. When I heard several of them remark that McCain's "that man" remark was condescending and would hurt him, I couldn't figure out why they were making that much of it---until I saw him making it. And then I understood their point.
It's really a strange and unusual transformation that's unfolding before our eyes: The more a Republican goes on the attack, the more it only seems to help the Democrat. This is VERY nice to see, and it's going to take me some time to get used to it. It's as if the independent voters are collectively saying to McCain, "There you go again."
And though I realize that all this has more to do with the economy (and perhaps the fast fading Wonder Woman gimmick) than anything else, I still like to think that at least a good part of it has to do with Obama's demeanor, which has been almost pitch perfect in comparison to the visibly more excitable man he's been facing.
One more point of satisfaction: I think it's fair to say that McCain was downright shamed and intimidated out of raising that phony "character" issue tonight. And for this I have to take off my virtual hat to both the media---which blasted him in advance for even thinking about it, and rightly so---and some prominent members of his own party, who are seeing the handwriting on the wall about the independent voters' growing immunization to that tired old tactic. Just the fact that McCain was too scared and/or ashamed to bring Ayers and Wright up should be counted as a significant advancement of civilization all by itself. And it took a village to do it.
I see that the CNN polls show Obama "winning" the debate by about 2 to 1. 3 down, 1 to go. I wonder what Palin and her press agent William Kristol thought of the lack of the mud bucket.
I heard the remark during the debate and thought it might be a bad move on McCain's part, because of how it sounded. My wife, who watched the remark, thought it was a terrible move on McCain's part. Now I'm interested in seeing the replay.
When did that occur in the debate? I missed the first and last 15 minutes.
It's a shame that the Democrats decided to fight for politically popular but ultimately toothless measures against executive pay and golden parachutes in place of allowing bankruptcy judges leniency in writing down the principal value owed in a bankruptcy (a power they have for corporations in being able to force debt for equity swaps, e.g.). Debt forgiveness/rationalization would allow more Americans to be able to afford to stay in their homes, increase incentives to sell at "realistic" market prices (that is, lower prices), and help banks get a better understanding of the true values of their mortgage backed securities and collateralized debt obligations.
That would explain how I missed it. I have to say that it absolutely stuns me that he would suggest something like that.
Edit: What's interesting to me is that Republican flack DMN responds to procedural disputes like Brokaw's authority, but not substantiative disputes like McCain's plan to bail out one, and only one, segement of the investing public.
My friends I'm so distressed, I feel the question of your loneliness.....
I love all of you, hurt by the cold.
FTFY.
Sorry, that is not in my acronymn dictionary.
I just made that up, really.
I thought the ABC commentary by both sides that McCain needed a fumble by Obama to happen and it didn't is pretty accurate.
At the same time, like Andy, I'm not going to feel safe until November 5th. Those red states are tricksy.
FTFY = Fixed that for you.
I said it before. Obama in a landslide. 350+ EV's.
McCain is (now) a goofball. 8 years ago he was on his game. Today, he is sadly a bad joke.
Ryan, we visited your lovely city of Toronto on our honeymoon. With due respect to Cooperstown, it was the highlight.
That's another thing. Watching CNN, and all their 18,000 commentators in front of their laptops. GET RID OF THE ####### THNGS! They make you look like the automatons you are. What, Bill Bennett can't answer a question from Anderson Cooper without checking his laptop?
Not too surprising, is it? In 2000 he had a mind of his own. Now he's little more than a steam calliope programmed by the RNC. It's not a winning plan for non-wingnut voters after 8 years of Bush.
"How can we trust either of you with our money, when both parties caused this global economic crisis?"
The point of the "town hall" style debate is that the candidates receive questions not through Gov. Palins's "filter of the mainstream media", but straight from the American people. And here was one of those questions.
For all of Palin's faults, she would have jumped all over this opportunity to connect with this woman like a, um, pit bull on a steak. Whether anything intelligent or coherent came out of her mouth in this attempt is debatable, but, gosh darn it, she would have done her best.
Obama and McCain? They very politely thanked her for her question, and then went into their damn stump speeches. Obama prattled on and on about the George Bush and surpluses and deficits and energy and...who gives a ####? McCain gave his "I'm a reformer who's battled corruption all my life, and bipartisanship, and yadda yadda". And, of course, both of them attacked each other. "McCain is going to cut your taxes, but he isn't going to spend any less money, so deficits are going to rise." "Obama has the most liberal voting record in the Senate, and, my friends, did I tell you about this overhead projector yet?"
I know that in the long run these "big picture" considerations determine the overall state of the economy, but this woman, and most of the rest of the middle-class, don't care about them. They see that gas and milk are both 4 bucks a gallon and that Sharon in the other cubicle just got laid off, and they want to hear what you're going TO DO about it.
"Theresa, you're right. It is very difficult to believe in politicians or your government right now. Both my opponent and I are in the United States Senate, and we both share some blame for not helping to formulate laws that would strike the right balance between regulation and honoring the free market. Both President Bush and President Clinton, as our last two stewards, should also take some blame. As well as Wall Street traders who played fast and loose with the rules. And corporate CEOs and the directors of government agencies like Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac who, through a combination of ill luck, honest mistakes, and incompetence, caused their institutions to falter and cause this destabilization. And predatory lenders who knowingly and recklessly convinced people to buy homes they couldn't afford. And some homebuyers who defaulted on their personal responsibilities.
There are enough people to point fingers at to fill several hands. And I will rightfully take my share of blame, and would also like to, as the leader of my party, accept the blame that my fellow party members should shoulder. But Theresa, I would like you to know that, although I understand and share your concern over this economic crisis, I also see a reason for hope. And the reason is that this time, we have the opportunity to do things better. Our mistakes to this point have been many, but I have hope that we will learn from them. And that's the reason that I got into politics in the first place: because I believe that I have both the ideas, and the ability, to do things better. I got into politics to help build a stronger economy for you, to help create a sensible health-care system for you, to help ensure a safer nation and world for you and your children. And that is why I am asking you, and the rest of the American people, to place your trust in me; both with your money and with the leadership of the nation that all of us in this room, including my opponent, know and love. I will acknowledge that mistakes have been made, I will learn from those mistakes, and I will help lead us to a better place; not just economically, but overall. And that is why I am asking for the honor of your trust."
I am totally in the tank for Obama. But if he had stumbled and McCain had given an answer something, anything, like what I wrote above, I would have stood up and cheered for him. Just for getting it. For understanding that maybe, just maybe, there are people right now who want to hear SOMEBODY say, "you're right. We messed up. We made mistakes. We're sorry. And we're not going to turn this into a typical 'it's your fault', 'no, it's YOUR fault' mudslinging contest."
This was the chance for McCain to score the "dramatic game changer" that everyone said he needed.
This was the chance for Obama to throw the indisputable knockout punch.
But more than that, this was a chance for both men to for one moment be not just politicians but real, live, empathetic human beings, and to give an honest answer from a blunt question straight from the mouth of an "average American"...and they both punted.
EDIT: That having been said, the parties did not cause the economic "crisis." Certainly the parties caused government to pursue bad policies of one form or another that contributed, but government is not responsible for all the bad in the world any more than it is responsible for all the good.
Clearly, the election isn't won yet. But it's looking like it's going to be impressively hard for McCain to make up the current deficit given his inability to gain any traction over the past 3 weeks, coming off an RNC bounce that was already defaulting to the status quo ante convention due to the structural advantages Obama has in this campaign. And I'm pretty pleased that in the debates where McCain should have done his best, on foreign policy and in the "town hall" setting, voters seem to think Obama won.
#462: You want Jedediah Bartlett as president.
It's probably poor debate form to argue with the question being asked instead of answering it, especially when the qustion came from an average person seeking an honest answer, rather than a member of the despised professional media.
And your answer is bang-on correct. (Well, maybe not the Libertarian part...but I did do a paper on Libertarianism in 2000 and found some of the platform intriguing.) The problem is that in the current climate of fear, any pol giving "it's not really our fault" as a response to that question will probably wake up on Election Day to the tune of a 40-point defeat.
Is it too much to ask that our President be someone at least as good as a character that a damn television writer thought up?
####, at this point I'd settle for Vinick. He'd do a lot of things I wouldn't agree with, but at least I'd know he'd have integrity and I wouldn't be ashamed when I heard him speak on television. And that situation would be 50% better than what I've lived through for the past 8 years.
Bartlett would clean up in this election, though. Nobel laureate economist in this economy? He wins by 20.
I suppose I'm just fatigued of cynicism and misplaced priorities. To tie together the two subject matters on this board: we seem to take the failure of our baseball players with a lot more seriousness and angst than we do the failures of our political and corporate leaders, even though (much as we loves our base-ball) the latter are clearly more important.
Really?
"Not you, Tom."
"This one."
"I'm green...behind the ears."
Those all made me go, "wait, what?"
I dunno, I think that's largely true because the primary topic of debate here is baseball. We follow our teams and post here largely on baseball topics. We might post more stridently, or judge our corporate or political leaders very differently if we're making comments on race42008 or dailykos or politico. I know I for one am both looking forward to the big Dem majorities, and terrified that we end up with a reprise of the first two Clinton years, where a new administration gets off on the wrong foot and while managing to get some good stuff done also largely fails to advance a truly progressive agenda. Clinton had the house and 57 senators from 1992-1994. He pushed through VAWA, Motor Voter, the Family Medical Leave Act, the Brady Bill, NAFTA, and Don't Ask Don't Tell, while balancing the budget. After that he had to play defense for 6 years. Given the major issues facing America today, it'd be downright terrible if that's the best an Obama administration could do.
"You know, a lot of you remember the tragedy of 9/11..."
This is what I mean by a couple words changing meaning for the worse. If he'd said "You know, we all remember" instead of "a lot of you remember" it sounds right. But it didn't come out perfect, and it sounds much worse for it.
Is it more likely that he thinks people don't remember 9/11 or more likely that he simply worded a recollection of 9/11 poorly? I'm gonna have to go with Occam's razor on this one.
What the hell is going on, when at least 10 percent of boys aged 13 to 14 have yet to find sexually explicit content?
Canadians, dood.
He's taking into account folks in the nursing home who are watching, but just don't quite remember 9/11. Seriously, in trying to account for multiple points of view and all possibilities (we all know someone who talks like this) he occasionally sounds awful.
That could be, though honestly I think he might have my disease where everything I say is couched in non-absolutes. When you're arguing something, it makes sense not to accidentally go too far and leave room for disagreement. Times like this, though, you sound stupid. It's probably something he's worked on a lot to not do, since it makes your points generally weaker, and not so good when you're in a debate where sounding sure counts for so much.
I agree that an answer like that would have been like a breath of fresh air. But as I'm sure a lot of you know, for either candidate to speak like that would have required a prior blood oath from both of them NOT to give one of those pious "gotcha" responses, and then mine the answer for a hundred "gotcha" attack ads. IOW it would have almost required the political equivalent of a fixed World Series.
I think your complaint is somewhat similar to the one that many of us sometimes have about the adversary system in the courtroom, i.e. that the necessity of "winning" at all costs overrides all considerations of truth and complexity.
Perfect example: In the first debate, Obama said on several occasions that he agreed with Senator McCain's answer to a question. And what was the post-debate response from the McCain campaign?
Was it even a hint of an acknowledgement that some issues don't necessarily have to be fought across party lines? You would think so, given all of McCain's rhetoric about his bipartisan approach to issues.
But instead, what we got was a series of "gotcha" TV spots, and then the spectacle of Wonder Woman running on like a six pack of gonorrhea about how Obama "had to admit" that "John McCain is right." You would have thought that Obama had come out in retroactive support of the war in Vietnam.
Is it any wonder that politicians are gunshy about trying to give the sort of answer that #462 suggests? The root cause of this is that all sides are so used to treating presidential campaigns as the Hollywood version of The War of the Roses that it's absolutely suicidal for anyone ever to concede the slightest point without getting savaged for it by the pit bulls on the other side.
But OTOH I'm sure that there IS a thirst among independent voters for exactly the sort of intelligent response to questions that #462 longs for. And even though he can't talk like that in the heat of a debate, for the reasons I note above, the body language and the overall tone of Obama's campaign have far more suggested this sort of approach than John McCain's. And I think that in great part the polls reflect this, when they indicate that Obama seems the more "presidential" of the two.
I found it jarring when I heard it, but I think it's more that Obama lets facts get in the way of rhetoric. He's taking into account folks in the nursing home who are watching, but just don't quite remember 9/11. Seriously, in trying to account for multiple points of view and all possibilities (we all know someone who talks like this) he occasionally sounds awful.
He continues to come off as an academic and academics are never truly absolute about anything (except their hatred of Bush and Republicans, of course). I think he was absolutely couching it because, in addition to old, senile people, there are lots of kids watching who may not actually remember 9/11. He's trying to be technically correct in a moment that calls for a more general type of correctness. And it is an issue that worries me. He can't be an effective president and always weigh every point of view equally and get mired in how to phrase policy in such a way that it is iron-clad 100% accurate. That would be to swing far to far to the other side of the spectrum from W.
Lassus, I think you're right. Going into it I was a McCain guy mostly from having watched him in the 90s and the 2000 campaign. This isn't the same guy and, really, it's not surprising. I know my father - who I've always admired in many ways - changed a lot in going from his 60s to his 70s. He's still great in many ways but the touch of bitterness and being a bit out of touch is definitely there and has come from a bit of a "maverick" streak. I think that sort of maverickness probably usually ends up with bitterness in the same way that idealism eventually lapses into cynicism. I'm not saying it will happen to everyone who reaches that age, but it's far too common not to notice.
I think you're way, way overthinking this. It was a malapropism, nothing more.
Are you talking about the energy bill comment? Because he said "that one," not "that man."
I think you're way, way overthinking this. It was a malapropism, nothing more.
Occam pwn3d.
I agree with this. I'm thinking that, rather than "You know, a lot of you remember the tragedy of 9/11 and where you were on that day and, you know, how all of the country was ready to come together and make enormous changes to make us not only safer, but to make us a better country and a more unified country", he really meant "You know, you remember the tragedy of 9/11 and a lot of you remember where you were on that day and, how all of the country was ready to come together and make enormous changes to make us not only safer, but to make us a better country and a more unified country".
It was a simple screw-up of phrasing, rather than some sort of implication that people don't know or remember about 9/11 - when people are speaking in a forum like the debates, they don't always express themselves as clearly as they intend. I'm willing to bet that both candidates would like to change a couple of their phrasings - this one for Obama, and "That one" for McCain.
I'm pretty sure Andy is referring to "that one". As noted above, as someone who originally listened to the debate, and only watched it later, the meaning of the phrase changed massively with the inclusion of the visual and McCain's gesture. Just hearing it, it seemed like a minor thing, whereas as the visual made it seem fairly insulting.
this from Politico.com:
"A Republican official emails, on background:
The most memorable line of the night belonged to John McCain. McCain pointed out that “That One” vote for the 05 energy bill. Look for Republicans to note in coming days that “That One” also voted for higher taxes at least 94 times; “That One” has associations with unrepentant terrorists, etc…"
http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/1008/GOP_likes_that_one_too.html
It strikes me personally as tone deaf, but the McCain campaign has been one of the shoddiest run major presidential campaigns I've ever seen, on a level that makes the heads of the Dukakis effort seem brilliant. Right now if McCain wants to win he needs to come up with something better than Wright or Ayers as mudslinging, he needs to come up with a positive message on the economy that resonates* and he needs to stop wasting money in Pennsylvania, Minnesota, and Wisconsin, and double down on Florida, Virginia, Colorado, and Ohio (and pray like hell he can stop Obama in either NM or NV, and IN/NC with what he's got). It is, barring a massive outside impact upon the campaign, the only way McCain will have a shot of winning.
*(his last best chance was to repudiate the huge bailout and lead a populist charge against main street fatcats- instead he voted for a bad bill and let Obama take the leadership mantle that he tried to grasp)
Are you talking about the energy bill comment? Because he said "that one," not "that man."
You're right, which may explain why it came across so much worse to people who heard it correctly, and who saw the body language, than it did to me when I was listening to it while not watching the screen.
EDIT: I see that Ryan also didn't catch the significance of "that man" until he saw the replay. But I suspect that the great majority of those following the debate weren't merely listening to it from another room.
So another trivial moment gets blown out of proportion, but this time it's the Republican who's the victim. My deepest sympathies to John McCain.
To be honest, I think running with the use of "That One" will only make things worse for McCain - it'll help him with the base, and those who already view Obama as "The Enemy", but it has an extremely unsavory racial undertone which will likely further drive independent and undecided voters away from McCain.
Of course, as you note, given the lackluster nature of McCain's campaign, they'll probably run with it anyway, and then look shocked when questioned about it, much like that Georgia representative who claimed to not be familiar with the negative connotations of "Uppity".
"A Republican official emails, on background:
The most memorable line of the night belonged to John McCain. McCain pointed out that “That One” vote for the 05 energy bill. Look for Republicans to note in coming days that “That One” also voted for higher taxes at least 94 times; “That One” has associations with unrepentant terrorists, etc…"
http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/1008/GOP_likes_that_one_too.html
This reminds me of the Spain gaffe. Instead of just owning up to it and admitting that he said something stupid, the campaign is going to double down. Dumb.
You're overthinking it. Much like McCain's "But you know, one of the real catalysts, really the match that lit this fire was Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. I'll bet you, you may never even have heard of them before this crisis", it was a momentary attack of the stupid.
Even our glorious leaders occasionally misspeak.
Hell, if you want to see some high quality linguistic bumbling, you should watch the English Canadian debates for Stephan Dion, and the French Canadian debate for Harper and Layton.
Perhaps I'm overthinking it. If I am, Obama has a malapropism frequency approaching W's.
I'd advise you to tape your conversations for a few weeks and play them back to yourself a few days later if you think this is the case. I'm only a piddling law student in a trial practice, but we have to watch our performances each week and critique them. I constantly say things in a way that I'm disappointed in, and I've noticed it when I'm in conversation too. That's not to say we shouldn't hold Presidents, whose primary job involves communication and leadership, to a higher standard, but I think it's a lot to say that Obama is at a Bushian level of malapropism. (also, is it a rate stat or a counting stat?)
Am I the only one here who isn't a lawyer?
One of McCain's problems all along has been that he has to keep throwing red meat to his loony base, many parts of which really does believe that Obama is a terrorist loving Muslim who's just biding his time before he names Bill Ayers to the Supreme Court.
But after these last two debates, the undercurrent of the campaign is getting to be much more "McCain's a tired and bitter old man" than "we don't really know who this Obama character is."
A broad brush stereotype, to be sure, and to a great extent an unfair one. But who's responsible for this rapidly emerging stereotype, if not McCain himself? It's hard not to note with a sense of deep satisfaction that the slimeball tactics of the Republican campaign are finally starting to come back to hurt them.
Apart from "and gets credit for the good things", this seems like a pretty accurate summary of the situation. While the manner in which Obama carries himself has probably been a mild help to him in the polls, he's derived a much larger benefit from just not being someone who can be tied to Bush specifically, or the Republicans in general. There was a reason why a lot of the A-list Republican talent kept away from the primaries, the vice presidency, the convention, and endorsements - they wanted to stay as far away from this mess until 2012. McCain, simply because of his age, didn't have that luxury.
That;s not to say that I don't think Obama is a good candidate - I think it's obvious that he is - but rather that he's significantly benefited from circumstances outside of his control (which is fine too, as part of being a successful politician is knowing when to make your move).
...George Bush is president, George Bush is a Republican, McCain is a Republican, and the president gets blamed for everything bad that happens in the world during his term in office (and gets credit for the good things). Why make it more complicated than that? If the two candidates were reversed, partywise, do you think Obama would be winning because he "seems more presidential"?
Of course not, but then do you think that Reagan, for all of his legendary charm and calm demeanor, would have won the 1980 election if not for stagflation and the Iranian hostage crisis?
The point is that even with all the earthshattering events of the past few weeks, the outcome of the election is still uncertain. Don't you think that the respective debate performances / demeanors of Obama and McCain have at least something to do with Obama's narrow lead? That's certainly what the polls of independent voters seem to be telling us.
I'd advise you to tape your conversations for a few weeks and play them back to yourself a few days later if you think this is the case. I'm only a piddling law student in a trial practice, but we have to watch our performances each week and critique them. I constantly say things in a way that I'm disappointed in, and I've noticed it when I'm in conversation too. That's not to say we shouldn't hold Presidents, whose primary job involves communication and leadership, to a higher standard, but I think it's a lot to say that Obama is at a Bushian level of malapropism. (also, is it a rate stat or a counting stat?)
Of course. And you're right that we should hold these guys to a higher standard. The man is a presidential candidate at a national debate. He's supposed to be the "smart" one and the better communicator. If it were a one-time misspeak, I'd agree with you. But, to my ears, Obama comes off this way almost all the time. Everything is conditional, and exceptions or noted - nothing is absolute. I'm not really criticizing* it since I do it a lot and a lot of my colleagues do it all the time.
Many people have, for years now, taken W's poor public speaking as a sign of his lack of intelligence. IOW, his public speaking ability informs as to his intellect and who he really is. Well, if public speaking can do this, then it's completely fair to judge Obama by it (and McCain, who is pretty poor himself - these "debates" have not exactly been such as to inspire a generation of English majors).
I say this as someone who has still not ruled out voting for Obama, shocking as that will be to many here. But I think there is definitely the air of the academic about him who tends to overthink and consider all the minute trivial details of every problem. That is good in an academic but, while not useless in a leader, can hamstring one from making a decision.
EDIT: * noting something that isn't positive isn't the same as criticizing. It's a trait I've observed - one others may not note or may disagree with - that I think might inform some aspect of Obama's personality. Which is pretty much what these dog and pony shows are about, is it not? I'm supposed to listen to what he says to see if I agree with it and watch him to see if he is trustworthy and capable of leadership. Right? That seems to me to rule out just dismissing stuff as a trivial. That I think Obama tends to equivocate doesn't mean I won't vote for him; it's just one more part of the overall package I have to evaluate.
You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.
<< Back to main