Site Presented By
Sunday, Nov 8, 2009
Carol Richards
Published Letters: 517
Biden grew on me as well. I have no doubt that certain names are floating for specific reasons...
I wanna thank everybody who emailed me about predicting a few months in advance the exact date Hillary would make her strong (not being sarcastic)concession speech. I will be distributing the final election prophesy next week.
Biden is kind of funny, isn’t he?
I really like the idea that we should just assume that Obama will be very basic. He'll do a couple surprisingly great things and some really awful thing and mostly he'll float in that safe center ground ("safe" but ultimately, and over time, very dangerous).
Most evidence points to that anyway. He'll only become a president that will be remembered as starting something significant if he is forced to do so. He can't be really blamed for his failures, but he also won't be able to take too much credit if he does become that president. It will be the majority of the people who simply no longer accepted the free float...it will be those people (most of us) who will get credit. Obama (or any president) is just a tool. And I think what might make him a fairly good tool is that- compared to most other viable options- Obama can actually be shaped by an energetic and wide awake civil society.
just thoughts, but I find that this way of thinking really avoids the delusion mind set that can get so disappointed and upset at the guy. The presidency is a spot that gravity will fill and, at this point, it ain't gonna be filled by Greenwald. It's a relief to think that the person in office might be just a bit sensitive to what might be emerging in our culture thanks to the likes of Greenwald and other who work hard to figure out what's going on.
Everybody around here is so smart and I want to take advantage of that.
I'd love to read some examples of what a "fighting back" Obama would say. Many examples that are very strong seem to be the type that would backfire (in terms of winning new votes). But I'm sure there must be a perfect balance he should strike. I kind of like him erroring on the side of not acting tough and mean. But I know next to nothing.
I disagree with you statement that this column was just joan horse-racing. I think she did a brilliant job of taking apart Brooks "analysis" of why those other presidents were placeable. I hadn't thought about how wrong he was on Kennedy.
I don't think Obama can do all that much about how much he wins or loses by. I mean, of course he needs to avoid any huge obvious blunders. But in terms of the fear that is bubbling to the surface because this race might be growing very close, I think our attention should mainly shift off of Obama.
It's not that I disagree with Joan about Obama's oversea trip but I really don't know how we can know anything about that. Perhaps his numbers were about to slip even more than they recently have and what we are seeing is how the trip mitigated the slip. I don't know.
Brook's very premise is one that most people share. That Obama is slipping from some golden place he is suppose to really be. Is there any evidence that Obama is suppose to be winning? Wouldn't history give us plenty of evidence that he would not even be here. I'm not saying that he doesn't need to run a strong campaign. I just have no clue how Brooks or anybody else knows that Obama is causing some sort of problem with how the election is going.
There will be millions of people who think Obama showed massive arrogance today by not starting his town hall meeting by leading everybody in the pledge. Obama really can't be the one responsible for how that is percieved. That doesn't seem arrogant or even stupid to me (even if a, gulp, republican did it) But I bet he'll be leading the pledge much more often!
Thanks, Joan, for writing about Brook's essay. It was the first thing I read when I woke up this morning and it sucked hard. I just let it tacitly work away at me today and your column did the trick.
Hey, I'm sure by now you've read a bit about the pledge. I have no idea if this will become a story, but it certainly has the right structure; it fits cleanly into the idea that Obama is somehow arrogant in a special kind of way that we don't see in other politicians.
I find this kind of talk really frustrating because, as you said very clearly, it can't be disproved. YET, we all know that it really makes no sense. But this is always obscured with the conversation about "perception".
I guess McCain did not appear arrogant tonight when he told all the bikers that as president he would never let congress go home if they weren't doing the right things for the country. Can you imagine if Obama said that? But when McCain does I guess we just think of him being a great, humble soldier.
Let me make clear; I have no clue about McCain's arrogance and I don't care. These guys are all way confident. And, yet, most of them are capable of compromise and giving other people credit. It is such a pointless distraction. But we will always have great journalists, like Brooks, to remind us of how critical it is in terms of the common "perception".
Hey, isn't Brooks a member of this place: The Center for American Free Thought
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JdJUy2s0tz8
What an AMAZING distinction he draws at the very end!
Much of the initial coverage about Fort Hood turned out to be wrong. Is there anything wrong with that?
The accountability imposed by another country for the CIA's kidnapping and torture reveals much about our own.
Fox News' morning show plays to type, talking about whether Muslims in the Army should face "special debriefings"
219 Democrats and one Republican join in favor of the legislation, which passed by a narrow margin
The survivor and author is upset about comparisons some on the right are making to genocide
Salon headlines in your mailbox
