PDA

View Full Version : The White Barack Obama


Bloggingheads
05-20-2008, 05:49 PM

gwlaw99
05-20-2008, 06:33 PM
I hoped for more from Gart Hart, a so called, foreigh policy specialist, than the tired refrain of McCain want's endless wars. What's the point of high profile guests if all they give is trite sound bites.

osmium
05-20-2008, 06:34 PM
most impressive.

in the second section, gary states that the coalition supporting obama is the same as that which supported him, rather than the mcgovern coalition. he says there's a shot at independents, but doesn't further define the coalition--so is that the core of it? help a guy in his 30s out--what was the 1984 primary divided on? i've always thought it was liberal/neoliberal, but i absorbed that from mickey's blog, i think. in the third section, the rural/cosmopolitan analogy is made--like, obama:hart::clinton:mondale. does this really feel like a replay, for anyone who wasn't ten at the time?

(it's bloggingheads, so i can say "gary," right?)

Sgt Schultz
05-20-2008, 06:55 PM
I always knew Bob was the sort of fellow who has running an internal continuous loop of the basketball scene from The Great Santini.
It's porn for him.
Until now I had not really seen Gary Hart that way.
Live and learn.

Wonderment
05-20-2008, 07:09 PM
What's the point of high profile guests if all they give is trite sound bites.

Rather than lots of pundits talking about the Dem. nomination, there are policy influences on Obama that I'd love to see seriously discussed on Bheads.

Samantha Power (the "monster" advisor), for example, may be a major influence on the next government. If I read her correctly, she has a strongly argued theory of unilateral (if necessary) military interventionism to prevent crimes against humanity.

She was a strong critic of the Clinton administration's lack of military intervention. Power won a Pulitzer Prize for her book advocating a very muscular response to conflicts around the world.

This is a huge, complicated and challenging issue for future foreign policy. Let's get ahead of the curve understanding it.

bjkeefe
05-20-2008, 07:10 PM
gwlaw99:

What's the point of high profile guests if all they give is trite sound bites.

There's something to that, and I agree that it would have been nice to hear some more in-depth foreign policy discussion. However, the reality is that Gary is affiliated with a candidate in an election season, so there's only so much one could expect. (Although I'm sure Bob would have been ecstatic if Gary went off the reservation -- a major political scandal started on BH.tv! ;^) )

One thing that was nice was Gary's pushback against Bob's odd obsession with the "bitter" remark. I don't understand why Bob continues to think that kerfuffle has legs, and it's not like Mickey is ever going to contradict a negative aspersion cast at Obama, so it was good to hear it coming from someone besides this commenter.

I also liked Gary's perspective on Obama as someone who won't be pushed around by the right-wing attack machine, and as someone who knows how to pace himself for the long haul. As an additional answer to Bob's question that provoked these thoughts, I wonder if Bob has ever seen this video (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yeejb_cFcjc).

Wonderment
05-20-2008, 07:27 PM
One thing that was nice was Gary's pushback against Bob's odd obsession with the "bitter" remark. I don't understand why Bob continues to think that kerfuffle has legs....

I agree that Bittergate does not have legs.

OTOH, the good Reverend Willie Horton will be chasing Barack from now to Election Day.

bjkeefe
05-20-2008, 07:40 PM
OTOH, the good Reverend Willie Horton will be chasing Barack from now to Election Day.

Did you see that he canceled (http://www.philly.com/inquirer/local/20080520_Wright_cancels_two_Philadelphia_appearanc es.html)a couple of appearances he was supposed to make in Philadelphia? I wonder if he's come to his senses.

I don't doubt that Wright will continue to be brought up through November, but I'm hard-pressed to think it will do anything except make people who weren't going to vote for Obama anyway feel better about themselves. It certainly didn't work as a strategy in the last three special Congressional elections when the GOP tries to tie Wright to the Democratic candidate.

dankingbooks
05-20-2008, 09:01 PM
Mr. Hart appears to be incapable of saying anything interesting.

bjkeefe
05-20-2008, 09:11 PM
Mr. Hart appears to be incapable of saying anything interesting.

Mr. King appears ... no. This one is too easy.

ed fielding
05-20-2008, 09:17 PM
Well me, I really enjoyed it.
Though it appears Bobís promise of penetrating insight may not be fully realized, nor will I attempt to complicate the picture.

Granted, many elders are not to be trusted, but Garyís perceptions and judgments seem wonderfully worthwhile to me; probably my favorite but one was his image of a fifteen-round match now only two rounds in. Also much appreciated his confidence in the quality he expects Obama to display. Most important was his posture as an independent intelligence with word of the lay of the land weíre moving toward.
Thus, my favorite thing, which I trust will be subject to a follow-up episode, is the fascinating work of composing an urgent climate-change agenda. If itís counted worthy, Iíll put in a request for consideration of what large cultural changes will be necessary and how we may hope to move beyond congenital careless consumption.

StillmanThomas
05-20-2008, 10:14 PM
Interesting conversation -- thanks gentlemen.

I couldn't agree more with Senator Hart's characterization of McCain's weakness as a nominee, and of the underlying schism in the Republican Party. I'm afraid the Senator might be a little too optimistic about Obama's strengths; that being said, however, I think it's possible that we'll see a Goldwater-level blowout (65-35) in the fall.

I've actually been wondering if the Republicans haven't chosen someone they don't really like to receive a drubbing of Biblical proportions come November.

bkjazfan
05-20-2008, 10:17 PM
Listening to Gary Hart it would appear that the general election will be a cakewalk for Obama. Let's see if that happens.

John

bkjazfan
05-20-2008, 10:24 PM
I agree that bittergate is not a dealbreaker but the good reverend has not served him well.

John

piscivorous
05-20-2008, 10:26 PM
Senator Hart has a habit of thinking thinks will be a cakewalk. He may be right this time but even a broken clock is right twice a day.

Jack McCullough
05-20-2008, 10:36 PM
McCain's temper?

I think there's more to it than that. I saw that video, and I didn't think it was someone out of control. I saw a bully. Not an attractive trait in a candidate or a human being.

bkjazfan
05-20-2008, 11:09 PM
I'm foggy about Hart's run for the presidency. Wasn't it derailed by his philandering ways on a boat named "Monkey Business?"

John

Eastwest
05-21-2008, 04:03 AM
Gad, Bob, why bore us with a styrofoam mind like Hart's?

He always was an egotistical, preening, faux-visionary even when he ran and I was more than happy to see his personal dishonesty kill his nomination back when he was so foolish as to have pretensions to the presidential power.

Here he's just doing precisely what you'd expect from Hart: Playing tapes of Obama sloganeering and cheerleading.

Please: BHTV can do better than this. Go interview some random street person or Telegraph Avenue busker or something.

This was really great only if you love Wonder Bread or Twinkies.

EW

otto
05-21-2008, 04:23 AM
Kaus is the designated hitter on Gary Hart around here. Next time around, Mickey and Gary...

Eastwest
05-21-2008, 05:23 AM
I think it's possible that we'll see a Goldwater-level blowout (65-35) in the fall.

Wow. What a dreamer. Can we quote you on that? Say, in mid-November?

The Republican party could have nominated the rotten corpse of a notorious pedophile and they'd still go hammer and tongs to get it elected, claiming all the while it's a paragon of virtue and the only man who can save the nation in these trying times.

My own prediction: Obama (assuming he doesn't self-destruct even before the Convention) will be very lucky to pull out even a 5-percent popular, 10 electoral-vote victory. More likely he'll lose by a hair or be robbed through another crooked recount (think "Florida") or Republican voter-suppression precinct corruption antics (think "Ohio").

Alternately, he'll get beat by a slight margin due to the world's most ghastly and sustained multi-front smear tactics married to an October surprise involving Iran or a deliberately-allowed Al Qaida strike. (Remember: Bin Laden wants another Republican. A peace-maker would be the biggest threat to his existence.)

EW

artoad
05-21-2008, 05:39 AM
I'm surprised by some of the negative commentary vis-a-vis this particular episode of bhtv. I thought it was one of the best. I found some of Bob' s nervous circumlocution just the right touch of deference. How many former presidential candidates have graced bhtv? I found Senator Hart's defence of Obama a reasoned considered display of partisanship with very little spin. I wish the Reverend Wright topic was brought up even though I know Bob was observing a certain sense of decorum. That's still a bit of a sticky wicket as far as I'm concerned. I think Senator Hart's feeling about all the West being in play for the Democrats is also very relevant. Did you see that turnout for Obama in Portland? 70000/a half a mile deep. I would like references to any other campaign event of that size in living memory. Thank you Bob and Gary.

Eastwest
05-21-2008, 06:17 AM
I found some of Bob' s nervous circumlocution just the right touch of deference. How many former presidential candidates have graced bhtv?....

Did you see that turnout for Obama in Portland? 70000/a half a mile deep. I would like references to any other campaign event of that size in living memory. Thank you Bob and Gary.

Oh, please....

I'm disappointed in Bob that he would even allow this guy on the site. That, on top of that, he would so fawn around Hart like some wide-eyed groupie in the presence of a rock-star is just embarrassing to even watch.

Hart was the "Great White Hope" for a sector of brain-free consumer-drone varietal aficionados. But his thought has always been about as deep as a puddle on your bathroom floor. I wonder if you were on the planet when he was around?

As for the Barack-Portland phenom. Excuse me: I lived there for twenty years. That Obama would pull a crowd of that sort down at Waterfront Park on a nice spring day is about as surprising as bin Laden being popular in Waziristan.

It tells you exactly nothing about whether or not Obama can win in November (which, btw, is the only issue that really counts).

EW

piscivorous
05-21-2008, 07:40 AM
the Russians have us beat easily Flying RC Penis Disrupts Garry Kasparov Speech (http://gizmodo.com/391794/flying-rc-penis-disrupts-garry-kasparov-speech)

piscivorous
05-21-2008, 07:42 AM
He had the audacity of daring the reporters to prove the rumors of his philandering and one of them followed him and caught him leaving the location of one of his trysts.

Big Wayne
05-21-2008, 07:55 AM
He had the audacity of daring the reporters to prove the rumors of his philandering and one of them followed him and caught him leaving the location of one of his trysts.
I suppose it's inevitable, but I wish we could reach a point where discussion 24 years later didn't have to revolve around one of the man's few failings. (I realize you didn't raise the subject, and were only answering the question [albeit with relish], so I'm not blaming you for this.)

It seems that Hart was the last politician in America to be done in by a regular issue, heterosexual affair. sort of like Supreme Court nominee Ben Ginsberg (IIRC) was the last high profile figure in politics to be done in for the non-crime of having smoked pot in his younger days. If Hart had run a few years later, he could have survived the extremely minor controversy of his affair. And the country would have been better for it.

Just think, Pisc: If Hart had beaten Reagan in 1984, we could have avoided the terrorist appeasers (aka "the Reagan Administration") who sent cash and weapons to Our Mortal Enemies, the Islamofascists, in Iran.

It amuses me that if any Democrat ever gave so much as a blueberry muffin to a mullah in Iran, the Republicans would be calling to have him decapitated in the public square.

piscivorous
05-21-2008, 07:59 AM
You will notice that I responded to a comment about not knowing much about what happened surrounding the Senator Hart campaign for the Presidency. That is what happened no?

Big Wayne
05-21-2008, 08:06 AM
You will notice that I responded to a comment about not knowing much about what happened surrounding the Senator Hart campaign for the Presidency. That is what happened no?

Yes, my apologies if it seemed I was criticizing you. I immediately thought to add a disclaimer to that effect, but unfortunately you caught my post before I added it.

In any event, yes, you were simply answering a question. I should have probably posted my thought in a separate thread.

I was thinking a similar thought yesterday, as Ted Kennedy's diagnosis was disclosed: As I travelled the comments sections and forums of the internets, the conservatives were still raising the issue of his "murder" of Mary Jo Kopechne. Love him or hate him, I think it's sad conservatives have refused to let the murder charge drop, even 36 years after the tragedy.

So: The thought about Hart's affair wasn't related to you, but just the frustrating fact that this is still what people choose to focus on decades after the fact.

I think, as much as anything, it shows a combination of shallowness and vengefulness on the part of the people doing it.

As usual, the lead offenders are the self-described "Christians" who apparently never read the parts of the Bible dealing with forgiveness, love, and redemption. But that hypocrisy is a central and defining aspect of conservatives. If it weren't for that, I don't think I'd recognize them.

piscivorous
05-21-2008, 08:43 AM
Yes, my apologies if it seemed I was criticizing you. I immediately thought to add a disclaimer to that effect, but unfortunately you caught my post before I added it.

In any event, yes, you were simply answering a question. I should have probably posted my thought in a separate thread.

I was thinking a similar thought yesterday, as Ted Kennedy's diagnosis was disclosed: As I travelled the comments sections and forums of the internets, the conservatives were still raising the issue of his "murder" of Mary Jo Kopechne. Love him or hate him, I think it's sad conservatives have refused to let the murder charge drop, even 36 years after the tragedy.

So: The thought about Hart's affair wasn't related to you, but just the frustrating fact that this is still what people choose to focus on decades after the fact.

I think, as much as anything, it shows a combination of shallowness and vengefulness on the part of the people doing it.

As usual, the lead offenders are the self-described "Christians" who apparently never read the parts of the Bible dealing with forgiveness, love, and redemption. But that hypocrisy is a central and defining aspect of conservatives. If it weren't for that, I don't think I'd recognize them.That is a condition of humanity and not exclusively reserved to conservatives as any impartial reading of the BB would judge. One's sexual proclivities is not really of much concern to me, as long as the are not damaging to one of the participants, but others find the need to judge on this issue. Such is the character of humans; until such time as evolve into Homo Superior. I don't see that prospect in the immediate future. Do you?

piscivorous
05-21-2008, 09:11 AM
If this, Southland home sales highest in eight months (http://www.dqnews.com/News/California/Southern-CA/RRSCA080519.aspx), is a trend and not a one off anomaly will it have effect on the fall election.

AemJeff
05-21-2008, 10:19 AM
I don't think Bob likes to engineer that kind of conflict during most first appearances. Though, I have a feeling there may have been one or two exceptions to that general rule.

deebee
05-21-2008, 11:22 AM
East West: (Remember: Bin Laden wants another Republican. A peace-maker would be the biggest threat to his existence.)


I ran across this rather strange article, "Barack Obama - Muslim Apostate?" in the Christian Science Monitor written by a professor from Virginia who spent her childhood in Pakistan with her Muslim father and Christian mother. She believes that Osama really wants Obama to win for his own nefarious purposes. I don't really know what to make of her perspective but thought that it was an interesting one to share.

http://www.csmonitor.com/2008/0519/p09s02-coop.html

bjkeefe
05-21-2008, 12:40 PM
deebee:

That article struck me as pseudo-intellectual tripe, a piece of fear-mongering written by someone who doesn't want Obama to be president for whatever reason.

The author seems to have a truly warped view of bin Laden's power to do anything. Big deal, he'll make another video tape talking about the apostate and swear out a death sentence on him. This makes Obama different from any other American president how?

And her claim that the supposed apostasy will make it hard for the US to engage that part of the world where Islam is "not just a religion, but a way of life"? Again I ask, how is this different from the challenge any American president will face?

If Obama's minor Muslim connections will do anything, they will show the more moderate Muslims in the world that they can be a little less afraid of the US as a country controlled by those who would like to start another Crusade. It won't be anything huge, but it'll be a little something to the good.

I think we already had a long thread elsewhere when essentially the same article appeared under a different byline on the NYTimes op-ed pages, so I'll close here. Just wanted to register my irritation.

Happy Hominid
05-21-2008, 02:54 PM
It was great to see and hear from Gary Hart again. I have to say, he gives me some hope. Can I still look that good and sound that good at 71? Oh, who the hell am I kidding? I didn't look or sound like him when I was 45.

I thought he made a terrific point about Obama's (and Michelle's) so-called gaffs. If that's the worst that has come out of a young politician who has had endless MSM scrutiny of the most trivial "issues" during the past 18 months, then he is a tremendous candidate. You can't say enough about someone who has passed the test of running against, and defeating, the powerful and ruthless Clinton machine. At least Hillary actually has some credibility policy-wise. McCain is bankrupt.

Happy Hominid
05-21-2008, 03:01 PM
Or did Bob's head visibly expand (http://bloggingheads.tv/diavlogs/11184?in=00:36:19&out=00:36:30)?

In fairness, I have to agree. I recently read The Moral Animal (twice). If you are interested in evo psych, it's the place to start.

Namazu
05-21-2008, 08:47 PM
Bob has broken faith with the bhtv audience by a) bringing on a guest whose sole purpose is to shill for a candidate, and b) applying the standards of critical analysis he applied to his Saudi junket. Bob: shame on you.

piscivorous
05-21-2008, 09:50 PM
http://bloggingheads.tv/diavlogs/11184?in=00:21:20 (http://bloggingheads.tv/diavlogs/11184?in=00:21:07&out=00:21:20).
I guess not since his uncontrollable temper ad made his fellow Illinois Senators physically restrain him. (http://campaignspot.nationalreview.com/post/?q=MWFmNTcxMjI4NzlhZWQ5NTk1OTRkMDlmOTY4M2RkN2I) The LA times confirms the altercation. Yea this guy is ready to be President. (http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-obamavotes24jan24,1,7079399.story)

deebee
05-21-2008, 09:53 PM
BJ Keefe: That article struck me as pseudo-intellectual tripe, a piece of fear-mongering written by someone who doesn't want Obama to be president for whatever reason.

I tend to agree with you and was really surprised to read something like that. I suspect that we can expect more of this genre in the coming days.

jh in sd
05-22-2008, 12:03 AM
"How many former presidential candidates have GRACED bhtv?"

Evidently, you have a higher opinion of politicians than I do.

Big Wayne
05-22-2008, 12:17 AM
http://bloggingheads.tv/diavlogs/11184?in=00:21:20 (http://bloggingheads.tv/diavlogs/11184?in=00:21:07&out=00:21:20).
I guess not since his uncontrollable temper ad made his fellow Illinois Senators physically restrain him. (http://campaignspot.nationalreview.com/post/?q=MWFmNTcxMjI4NzlhZWQ5NTk1OTRkMDlmOTY4M2RkN2I) The LA times confirms the altercation. Yea this guy is ready to be President. (http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-obamavotes24jan24,1,7079399.story)

No, it doesn't. Why are you saying the LA Times confirms the uncorroborated allegation made by NRO, when, in fact, it does not?

piscivorous
05-22-2008, 12:44 AM
The alligation is made in David Mendell's biography of the Illinois senator, Obama: From Promise To Power. The LA Times confirms the incident just not the level. A fellow Democrat suddenly seethed with anger. "You got a lot of nerve to talk about being responsible," said Sen. Rickey Hendon, accusing Obama of voting to close the child welfare office.

Obama replied right away. "I understand Sen. Hendon's anger. . . . I was not aware that I had voted no on that last -- last piece of legislation," he said.

Obama asked that the record reflect that he meant to vote yes. Then he requested that Hendon "ask me about a vote before he names me on the floor."

Hendon declined to discuss the episode. "I try to block out unpleasant memories," said Hendon, who has endorsed Obama. "If I tried really hard to remember it, I probably could, but I'm not going to try hard because I'm supporting the senator all the way."An agreed upon event, an author that is will to go on the record with it, and an LA Times story that reports it differently with a quote from Tommy Vietor, an Obama spokesman. Yea right it doesn't confirm it.

Big Wayne
05-22-2008, 12:50 AM
Pisc,
I didn't think you were so dishonest. There is only one way to read your initial post on this topic, now that you have had a chance to correct it: You're lying.

Your initial post referred to a single event ó one specific incident:

[Obama] made his fellow Illinois Senators physically restrain him [after he allegedly lost his temper].

You then issue a flat out lie:

The LA times confirms the altercation.

But in fact, the LA Times does not confirm the altercation. ("The altercation" is a clear reference to being physically restrained.)

Even the NRO article admits what you will not:

The Los Angeles Times talks about Hendon and Obama shouting on the Senate floor in 2002, but no word of any near-physical altercation.

Show some respect for yourself, man. I had some respect for you before this.

piscivorous
05-22-2008, 01:12 AM
They ever popular shame shame 'll still love you in the morning. A shill for Senator Obama the co firms the gist of the allegation but denies the totality in the Senator's favor. Yep I'm convinced.

Big Wayne
05-22-2008, 01:16 AM
They ever popular shame shame 'll still love you in the morning. A shill for Senator Obama the co firms the gist of the allegation but denies the totality in the Senator's favor. Yep I'm convinced.

Let me ask you directly: Did the LA Times confirm that Obama "had to be restrained" because he "lost his temper"? (For the record, that's a yes or no question.)

piscivorous
05-22-2008, 01:41 AM
The quoted shill for Senator Obama spun it in the light you would expect a mouthpiece to put it. I like the quote from Senator Hendon on the matter.Hendon declined to discuss the episode. "I try to block out unpleasant memories," said Hendon, who has endorsed Obama. "If I tried really hard to remember it, I probably could, but I'm not going to try hard because I'm supporting the senator all the way."

Hendon said "it happens" that senators press the wrong button. But he was quick to add: "I've never done it." that pretty much says it all.

Big Wayne
05-22-2008, 01:49 AM
The quoted shill for Senator Obama spun it in the light you would expect a mouthpiece to put it. I like the quote from Senator Hendon on the matter. that pretty much says it all.

I'll ask again:

Did the LA Times confirm that Obama "had to be restrained" because he "lost his temper"?

I'm wondering if you will be able to directly answer this question.

piscivorous
05-22-2008, 02:00 AM
Does Senator Hendon deny it? No he skirts the issue by claiming Alzheimers or something along those lines. If it weren't true would the Senator take such a stand? This screams yes it does confirm it. Of course his memory may improve in the near future!

Big Wayne
05-22-2008, 02:14 AM
Does Senator Hendon deny it?

How could Sen. Hendon deny or admit it if he wasn't asked about it? You have supplied no evidence that Sen. Hendon was ever asked about the unsourced and uncorroborated allegation that Obama "lost his temper" and "had to be restrained."

Remember, you're the one making the charge, and the burden of proof is on you. There is nothing in either of the links you supplied that shows Hendon was ever specifically asked to comment on the "restrained" allegation.

The LA Times says,

A fellow Democrat suddenly seethed with anger. "You got a lot of nerve to talk about being responsible," said Sen. Rickey Hendon, accusing Obama of voting to close the child welfare office.

Obama replied right away. "I understand Sen. Hendon's anger. . . . I was not aware that I had voted no on that last -- last piece of legislation," he said.

Obama asked that the record reflect that he meant to vote yes. Then he requested that Hendon "ask me about a vote before he names me on the floor."

Hendon declined to discuss the episode. "I try to block out unpleasant memories," said Hendon, who has endorsed Obama. "If I tried really hard to remember it, I probably could, but I'm not going to try hard because I'm supporting the senator all the way."

Clearly, the episode that Hendon declined to discuss was the argument about Obama's vote, and not the charge that Obama had to be restrained.

So, if you have any evidence that Sen. Hendon was asked about the unsourced and uncorroborated allegation that Obama "lost his temper" and "had to be restrained," I would love to see it. We both know you have no such evidence.

I'm genuinely amazed that you find it so difficult to simply say, "I was wrong. My post went overboard, and I said something that isn't true."

Big Wayne
05-22-2008, 02:39 AM
Does Senator Hendon deny it? No he skirts the issue by claiming Alzheimers or something along those lines. If it weren't true would the Senator take such a stand? This screams yes it does confirm it. Of course his memory may improve in the near future!

Shorter Pisc:

Hendon didn't confirm the allegation, which confirms the allegation.

bjkeefe
05-22-2008, 04:25 AM
I tend to agree with you and was really surprised to read something like that. I suspect that we can expect more of this genre in the coming days.

I suspect you're right. The GOP doesn't have much to run on this time around besides FUD.

piscivorous
05-22-2008, 07:53 AM
I think the evidence it was asked about is the fact that the issue was discussed. Or maybe the reporter dreamed the whole conversation. Da

Tom Wittmann
05-22-2008, 11:25 AM
Excuse me for being dumb, but wouldn't Hart be a decent Obama veep pick? You know, regional balance to pick up Western purple states, wrote prescient paper on terrorism, etc, old but looks better than the ancient McCain, etc?

Would ancient pictures of the Monkey Business still kill him???

bjkeefe
05-22-2008, 11:42 AM
Excuse me for being dumb, but wouldn't Hart be a decent Obama veep pick? You know, regional balance to pick up Western purple states, wrote prescient paper on terrorism, etc, old but looks better than the ancient McCain, etc?

Would ancient pictures of the Monkey Business still kill him???

Don't think you're being dumb. It's an interesting thought and I'd be happy to vote for that ticket.

Arguments against:

o Too long out of office and the public eye, which implies low name recognition and enables an "out of touch" argument to go along with the "no experience" trope. Related: does not help boost the turnout among younger voters and those who want change.

o No particular cred on foreign policy or defense except among wonks.

o Easy to attack as "liberal from the McGovern era."

o Age dilutes strength of running against McCain's age.

o If seen as anything, seen as cerebral, an area which Obama has covered, and won't help with the Jane and Joe Six-Pack types.

o And yeah, the "Monkey Business" business is another probable attack point, even still. Karl Rove would be delighted to use this.