Obama Pessimism

[Bloggingheads]

[olmeta]

Cancel all the other Obama / race in America commentators scheduled for upcoming diavlogs. These guys are in another league.

[tarajane]

Originally Posted by olmeta

Cancel all the other Obama / race in America commentators scheduled for upcoming diavlogs. These guys are in another league.

They are my absolute favorites -- I love the way they listen to and respond to one another.

[1mpossible]

i'm in full agreement with the above post; i pop in to bloggingheads.tv every day hoping for a loury/mcwhorter appearance.

[miceelf]

Loury seems to assume that things would have been better with his girl Clinton.

Who herself was just as much a product of image vs. substance. (her alleged foreign policy "experience" consisted of a variety of trips as first lady).

[sp3akthetruth]

I was thinking the same thing. He is infatuated with Clinton and his anger towards Obama is obvious every diavlog. I find it funny that I agree with John more often than Glenn when my politics are more inline with Glenn.

Also, Clarence Thomas is a horrible justice. He has not asked a question in over two years, who is an ideologue.

[graz]

Originally Posted by sp3akthetruth

I I find it funny that I agree with John more often than Glenn when my politics are more inline with Glenn.

I can't fully fathom where Glenn stands politically. Knowing a little about his history and have read some of his work and listening to him on bhtv leaves me unsure? He is clearly focused on the meaning of politics. Not only does he find Obama's approach to politics suspect, if not bankrupt, he admires McCain's saber rattling (Georgia) and Joe Scarborough's regular guy shtik.
I sense a return to his earlier conservative roots, that he is not owning completely.
I think that he shares with John, but for different reasons, a desire to transcend racial politics. But, he can't be any clearer about his resentment of the "Hyde Parkness" that the Obama's represent to him.
He clearly thinks Mccain is "Presidential" enough. And when prompted by John to denounce the likely result of McCain's ascendancy... Nothing but crickets.
Maybe I do fathom his politics, after all.

[anyfreeman]

thoughtful commentary. My current question: How come the identification of Obama as 'mixed race' is so underplayed. With his history and background, it is more accurate as a point in fact. This framing of Obama as "black" seems so....20th century, and limits the discussion to a backward looking context of black-only aspirations. this is a loss to the multi-cultural reality that is America 2008. Perhaps it also plays to 'ground' the perceptual argument, and to tamp down the post-race definition that polled so well in the primaries.

[miceelf]

And the whole notion that Hillary Clinton would have been having the kind of high-minded disputation about the meaning of evil in taht forum is just laughable. He really doesn't seem to see how unfair and arbitrarily high a standard he is holding Obama to, relative to her.

[claymisher]

Originally Posted by miceelf

And the whole notion that Hillary Clinton would have been having the kind of high-minded disputation about the meaning of evil in taht forum is just laughable. He really doesn't seem to see how unfair and arbitrarily high a standard he is holding Obama to, relative to her.

I'm happy to have Obama be himself, miceelf.

[ohcomeon]

I agree one minute - disagree the next. I see both sides - I see neither side. No matter - these two are the best. Bloggingheads. ever.

[bjkeefe]

Originally Posted by ohcomeon

I agree one minute - disagree the next. I see both sides - I see neither side. No matter - these two are the best. Bloggingheads. ever.

Stop stealing my thoughts!

[brucds]

"The candidacy is so freighted..."

Unlike Hillary's ? Glenn. Get fucking real.

[claymisher]

Loury's reactions remind me of some Jewish friends back in 2000 with Lieberman. I remember them saying stuff like, "Who needs the trouble?", "Leave us Jews out of it," and "This is going to hurt us in the end." And I totally understand it. But Obama has too much going for him.

[Mr. Mayhem]

Mr. Loury mentioned Andrew Bacevich as a prominent critic of the Global War on Terror. He has a new book out and would be a fantastic "get" for Bloggingheads. He's an impressive guy. Powers That Be, please consider approaching him to do a diavlog.

Loury and McWhorter are two of my favorite Bloggingheads, and it is always a pleasure to watch them. McWhorter gives me real hope about a potential Obama presidency, in contrast to many of the other pro-Obama Bloggingheads. In this diavlog, however, Loury's point about the Clarence Thomas remark seems dead on. That seems like the last thing Obama would want to raise. Likewise, the whole "cone of silence" thing seems like the petty response of a campaign surprised by the strength of its opponent. Is it too much of a stretch to compare that to the reaction of the Clinton campaign when Obama emerged as a strong challenger? Maybe it is.

A brief word on Star Wars... I don't consider myself to be quite the Stuff White People Like type, but if you had asked me about my reaction to Star Wars Episode 1 shortly after I saw it, I might have brought up the Jar Jar Binks thing, as well as the other broad ethnic stereotyping (the bad guys and their Asian-ish accents, and the big-nosed Jewish stereotype blue flying guy who owns Anakin and his mother). It might be the single easiest thing to put one's finger on in describing why that movie was kind of a disappointment. There was plenty more that was disappointing in that movie, of course, but the ethnic angle was a completely tone deaf aspect of the film that was easy to pick out and might have been the first thing I mentioned if asked shortly after seeing the movie. That said, McWhorter may be entirely right about the people he overheard.

I don't know if John McWhorter reads these comments, but if he does, he should check out Black Landlord if he hasn't already.

Apologies for the highly disjointed comment... these guys are great fun to watch and they spark a lot of semi-unrelated thoughts....

[Xelgaex]

if you had asked me about my reaction to Star Wars Episode 1 shortly after I saw it, I might have brought up the Jar Jar Binks thing, as well as the other broad ethnic stereotyping

At the danger of getting a little off topic, my first reaction would have been irritation that Anakin destroys the enemy virtually by accident (same with Jar Jar on the ground). Second probably would have been that Jar Jar was just annoying. If we talked at length about it then we might get the racial stuff.

So I have to agree with what John was saying. You might notice it, but to have it be the first thing you mention when someone asks you is a little much.

BTW I'm a sucker for horns in music so I like the link you provided.

[bjkeefe]

Mr. Mayhem:

Thanks for this recommendation:

Mr. Loury mentioned Andrew Bacevich as a prominent critic of the Global War on Terror. He has a new book out and would be a fantastic "get" for Bloggingheads. He's an impressive guy. Powers That Be, please consider approaching him to do a diavlog.

And this:

... check out Black Landlord ...

I can heartily second the second.

I was delighted to find out that I didn't have a SWPL-type reaction to Jar Jar. Who knew anyone would bother to read anything into that character? I found him the most annoying thing ever to disgrace a movie screen, and quickly devoted my Jedi powers to wiping all memories of him from my mind.

[benjy]

Fantastic. Great to be back in the wonderful world of high quality Bloggingheads discussion. I should've counted to ten yesterday and waited for my BhTV universe to be restored to its proper equilibrium once the pros came back. I take back what I said yesterday--you don't need people from both sides of the spectrum necessarily, just really smart, curious, engaged, thoughtful people. That's it. Smart people equals great discussions, and John and Glenn are at the top of the list. Its such a pleasure to listen to discourse like this--the ideas are the ones that really matter, and the use of language is word perfect. Thanks guys. I don't have literally all day to type out a response to the various arguments and points made, so a general lauding will have to do

Alright, can't resist a couple things though First, that maybe John was a little harsh on Herbert--of course the guy is and knows he's smart, way smarter than the average person. Maybe on some level John has something, but I can't imagine Herbert or other African-Americans that are that smart actually thinking they're worse than others. I guess John is saying on some deep-seated psychological level, not a conscious one, I don't know. But someone like Herbert obviously knows he's very smart, and Obama's a super talent, so I'd imagine more that he's just extra-sensitive to that talent being held back by race...
On Saddleback its true it was a subpar performance for Obama and a good one for McCain, and Obama's got to be more open, passionate, direct, anecdotal, and less professorial to the extent he's able in those type of interviews in front of audiences. But I didn't see the Thomas mentioning as as disastrous as Glenn did--in fact on the reverse side I thought it might play well to whites because he's a black man saying this other black man wasn't qualified, i.e., telling what he sees as the truth whether its about a black person or a white one. And he's so clearly of superior ability to Thomas that I wouldn't make the connection Glenn did, but there I could be overestimating the importance of logic, which somehow I still do sometimes even after living through a few elections in the U.S. of A.

As for my suggestion for similarly high quality discussions of economics encompassing both the nitty-gritty of policy and its effects on output, wages, etc., and the fact that budgets are moral documents and an expression of what we value as a society, if you have a team of this quality in that area I haven't come across it yet. (If someone knows where to find it in the archives I'd be much obliged, and if its not there, pleeeeez can we have one? ). Actually I bet these two could do it themselves. How about discussions of the various major issues at play in the election, some combination of how they play out electorally and in opinion polls, and the ultimate philosophical/moral/justice/liberty/practical possibility/whatever ramifications of said issues in the run-up to the election.... Ehhh?? (To be read with a Jewish accent )

[brucds]

Obama's fitness for the Presidency = Clarence Thomas' fitness for the Supreme Court. No, Glenn. I don't think so. If that made any sense at all, he'd already be toast and you'd be able to vote for your girl in November and wouldn't be harboring this bullshit bitterness toward Barack.

[brucds]

Apparently Glenn's subscription to the Atlantic has run out, or he'd be embarrassed by his persistent Clintonphilia. The funny thing about so much of this discourse is that it's predicated on the notion that Hillary was the smart pol and Obama was an idealistic naif. This turned out to be total bullshit - Hillary couldn't manage a goddam presidential political campaign, i.e. couldn't handle those 3am phone calls in the course of her quest, but Glenn still thinks she was the solution to whatever problems Democrats face.

And I have to say that the discussion of Bob Herbert was unbelievably arrogant and guttersniping on the part of both of these guys.

[brucds]

On the "evil" thing - Obama was in a religious forum and he answered the question precisely as any Niebuhrian Christian would answer it in that context. Even Rick Warren, who's a lightweight theologically, "got it." McCaiin answered it the way a hubristic moron would tackle it. Which also obviously had a certain appeal for "Pastor Rick" for the usual unfortunate reasons. But for "smart guys", both McWhorter and Loury are showing a certain cluelessness here.

[John M]

Dear My Friends,

Here's some straight talk:

First off, McWhorter and Loury are both Muslims.

Not Islamofascists, but more like Malcolm X types. Race this, race this. That's all they can talk about. It's divisive as heck, my friends. Un-American.

My Friends, we are beyond so-called "race" in these UNITED States of America. My whole cabinet might be black. Or white maybe. Or purple. I'm color blind. (And a little hard of hearing, but no signs of dementia. Clean bill of health from my gerontologist.)

I am glad these two did take Bob Herbert to task on my Britney/Paris ad. The ad had NOTHING TO DO WITH SEX, much less miscegenation, which, incidentally, I do not think should be illegal.

How many times do I have to say that photomontages of B. Hussein Obama with young blonde sluts who are famous for oral sex porn tapes and/or getting photographed with their legs spread without panties are completely unrelated to black men and sex?

Now, as for you, my friend Bcruds,

McCaiin answered it the way a hubristic moron would tackle it. Which also obviously had a certain appeal for "Pastor Rick" for the usual unfortunate reasons.

I don't know what "hubristic" means in Mexican or whatever, but I am no moron.

I didn't talk to Pastor Rick in complicated phraseologies and whatnot. I gave him Straight Talk: A zygote is a person. Period. Even if it's smaller than a period.

Furthermore, on Day One at 3 a.m., when we are surrounded by Al Qaeda, Iranians and Russians, we won't be worrying about blastocysts. We'll be worrying about blasting Putin and Ahmadinejad to kingdom come.

We're all Georgians now, My Friends. Ba-ba-bomb Iran!

God Bless America! (not "god d***, America" as Mcwhorter and Loury say)

[Eastwest]

These two are one of the best pairings on BHTV.

Well, yes, one might indeed be pessimistic about Obama's chances. (I've been so for over a year now.)

What's nice here is to get an airing of the realism underlying the pessimism, one which is not simply stuck in the themes unique to the Primary battle. (Nice to see McWhorter being so out-front about it.)

(BTW, fair number of folks here are still stuck in trash-HRC mode. Get over it. The Primary's over, and, no, that's not where Glenn is coming from here, so why slander him with that? Weren't you listening? He's just a realist who like many of us, refused to swig the kool-aid.)

In spite of my pessimism about Obama, I hope he chooses Biden as VP (my original Primary preference who could have taken McCain to the cleaners, no problem), gets off his arrogance-and-artifice hobby-horse, and learns how to shoot real bullets. Otherwise, he's as good as dead meat and bound to be the great shame of the Democratic party for decades to come for pulling the big con with no real juice to back it up.

Thanks to both. Looking forward to the promised post-convention DV by these two.

EW

[TwinSwords]

Originally Posted by Eastwest

These two are one of the best pairings on BHTV.

Well, yes, one might indeed be pessimistic about Obama's chances. (I've been so for over a year now.)

What's nice here is to get an airing of the realism underlying the pessimism, one which is not simply stuck in the themes unique to the Primary battle. (Nice to see McWhorter being so out-front about it.)

(BTW, fair number of folks here are still stuck in trash-HRC mode. Get over it. The Primary's over, and, no, that's not where Glenn is coming from here, so why slander him with that? Weren't you listening? He's just a realist who like many of us, refused to swig the kool-aid.)

In spite of my pessimism about Obama, I hope he chooses Biden as VP (my original Primary preference who could have taken McCain to the cleaners, no problem), gets off his arrogance-and-artifice hobby-horse, and learns how to shoot real bullets. Otherwise, he's as good as dead meat and bound to be the great shame of the Democratic party for decades to come for pulling the big con with no real juice to back it up.

Thanks to both. Looking forward to the promised post-convention DV by these two.

EW

One of the challenges the Democrats face, one of the reasons it's hard for us to win presidential elections, is because people like you and Glenn want us to lose. Every bit of energy you and he invest in this campaign is intended to weaken the candidate. You might as well be a Republican. You're the functional equivalent of a wingnut. Perhaps worse, as attacks on two flanks are more difficult to contend with than attacks on just one.

Nothing seems to lift your and Glenn's spirits or bolster your self-regard as much as bad news for Democrats.

Heck, even when there is no bad news for Obama -- he's been leading all summer, albeit by a slowly declining margin -- you crow about how he's losing. It's people like you who are going to doom this country to three more Scalia's on the Supreme Court and an irreversibly entrenched Republican fascism. For the life of me I don't understand why that makes men like you and Glenn so gosh darned happy.

Here's the deal: It's not about Glenn and his insecure jealousy of Obama, or his need to win all those arguments he's been having with his wife. It's not about you or your bitterness over Hillary's defeat. Neither one of you seems able to see past your own personal feelings. You both know what's better for the nation, and you are both determined to make sure it doesn't happen.

[Eastwest]

Originally Posted by TwinSwords

(Referring to the Eastwest post) One of the challenges the Democrats face, one of the reasons it's hard for us to win presidential elections, is because people like you and Glenn want us to lose. [EW: This is Fox News style jive.] Every bit of energy you and he invest in this campaign is intended to weaken the candidate. You might as well be a Republican. You're the functional equivalent of a wingnut. Perhaps worse, as attacks on two flanks are more difficult to contend with than attacks on just one.

Nothing seems to lift your and Glenn's spirits or bolster your self-regard as much as bad news for Democrats.

Heck, even when there is no bad news for Obama -- he's been leading all summer [EW: "Screwing up all summer" is more like it.] , albeit by a slowly declining margin -- you crow about how he's losing. It's people like you who are going to doom this country to three more Scalia's on the Supreme Court and an irreversibly entrenched Republican fascism. For the life of me I don't understand why that makes men like you and Glenn so gosh darned happy.

Here's the deal: It's not about Glenn and his insecure jealousy of Obama, or his need to win all those arguments he's been having with his wife. It's not about you or your bitterness over Hillary's defeat. Neither one of you seems able to see past your own personal feelings. You both know what's better for the nation, and you are both determined to make sure it doesn't happen. [EW: The term for this little rant of yours is: "Assigning Motives." (Inaccurately, btw.)]

TS:

I can appreciate why it rankles that Dem cats don't herd very well and continue to call out jive and artifice when it's obvious.

But let's get real: Maybe a few thousand votes (max) would get influenced by Loury's having to laugh to keep from crying in his observations of Obama's pomposity, artifice, and amateurishness. Maybe a dozen (max) would ever be influenced by my own statements in that vein.

BHTV forum is a miniscule puddle in the great sea of electoral politics read almost solely by perhaps a hundred little minnows who think they're sharks and, as with your post, assume they're chatter is somehow consequential even though, of course, it's not, not, not.

So you can breathe a sigh of relief. If Obama didn't act like a pompous air-head, people like Glenn wouldn't call him out for it. The ball's in his court (again). We'll just see if he keeps dancing and pirouetting for the cheerleaders or gets down to the business of keeping the ball in play. Damn. There he goes again: another double fault!

I still want him to win, but I'm not going to quit calling them the way I see them just cuz a few reality-challenged bloggers get miffed over a little criticism of their amateur-hour political idol.

EW

[TwinSwords]

Originally Posted by Eastwest

TS:

I can appreciate why it rankles that Dem cats don't herd very well and continue to call out jive and artifice when it's obvious.

You're right. Dem cats don't herd very well. It's as Brendan said recently:

Originally Posted by Brendan

It's funny how the wingnuts like to talk about the left as some monolithic body of thought, when it's patently obvious that for the past thirty years at least, when it comes to winning elections, [the circular firing squade has] been our biggest failing.

Note: "the circular firing squad" is my own paraphrase for Brendan's pronoun "this."

EW: It's not that other people don't share your moral purity. It's just that some people feel the frying pan is better than the fire. I'll take three more Clinton-like Supreme Court nominees and one more Clinton-style war over three more Scalia's and three wars of McCain's choosing. I see a big difference there, even if Obama is the empty ditz you say he is.

Originally Posted by EastWest

But let's get real: Maybe a few thousand votes (max) would get influenced by Loury's having to laugh to keep from crying in his observations of Obama's pomposity, artifice, and amateurishness. Maybe a dozen (max) would ever be influenced by my own statements in that vein.

I'm sorry if I gave you the impression that I was condemning your influence. I was not. I was, instead, describing your state of mind, and what you appear to be fantasizing about: a McCain victory. I agree with you that you don't have a whole lot of influence. (And neither do I.)

Originally Posted by EastWest

BHTV forum is a miniscule puddle in the great sea of electoral politics read almost solely by perhaps a hundred little minnows who think they're sharks and, as with your post, assume they're chatter is somehow consequential even though, of course, it's not, not, not.

I think your estimate of the number of readers is probably way low. There are almost certainly at least 10 times as many readers as posters. But as for the non-numeric aspects of your statement, I agree: most of the people here are engaged in inconsequential chatter. There may be an exception or two.

Originally Posted by EastWest

So you can breathe a sigh of relief. If Obama didn't act like a pompous air-head, people like Glenn wouldn't call him out for it. The ball's in his court (again).

Well, actually, the ball's in the media's court, and the media has decided that it wants McCain to be our next president.

Originally Posted by EastWest

We'll just see if he keeps dancing and pirouetting for the cheerleaders or gets down to the business of keeping the ball in play.

I'm quite sure you would be bashing him no matter what he did. I think you know it, too.

[Eastwest]

Originally Posted by TwinSwords

I see a big difference there, even if Obama is the empty ditz you say he is.

I'm quite sure you would be bashing him no matter what he did. I think you know it, too.

Hmmm. I of course do agree that McCain would be a complete disaster. I don't think anybody has any basis for knowing what Obama would be.

Clarification: No, I don't think Obama is what you call "an empty ditz." Au contraire: He's a very cunning operator whose been lusting for power for quite a few years now. Anyone whose read the more recent info on his Chicago history (per the in-depth New Yorker article and the related interviews, as, for instance, with Terry Gross), would understand this.

One of my larger beefs with him is precisely what Biden leveled against him early in the Primaries, i.e. that he's adequately smart, just not experienced and wise enough yet. In short he's still politically (and I think, personally) still rather immature. Even with just another four years in the US Senate, he'd have been a lot more convincing.

As for your conclusion that I'd be bashing him, no matter what, that's not true. I don't want McCain and in fact fear McCain. I'd choose BO, even as "green" as he is, even knowing it's a massive gamble.

Now, I'd like to suggest that folks wake up and smell the coffee a little more. This is not just me going off for no reason. Here's a little article by Carla Marinucci in yesterday's SF Chronicle that gives you a rationale which you needn't so directly identify with my seemingly chronic disapproval of BO's approach to campaigning (and this one doesn't even touch on the "pivot-to-the-right" and at least half a dozen other errors about which I was sounding off a few weeks ago):

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/articl...&type=politics

There's still time for BO, but not much, so he better quit fooling around and start shooting real bullets and avoiding McCain's traps. Hopefully Biden (much more savvy, infinitely wiser, and possessed of a great sense of humor with which he can tear McCain's nuts right off without even batting an eye) will show him a model of how to proceed. I only worry that BO will be too proud to learn. (Smarts mean nothing if you're not willing to learn.)

Just a brief quote from the above article:

"A national poll released Wednesday by Reuters/Zogby showed McCain beating Obama 46 to 41 percent, an advantage that also shows that voters now see McCain as stronger on economic issues. The latest poll erased the strong seven-point advantage held by the Democrat just last month. Other polls had the race statistically tied."

Cheers,
EW

[Eastwest]

PS: Also, it would be helpful if Obama could grow a pair of his own.

A large sector of older swing voters frankly get a scent of "wuss" off the guy, wonder if he's a eunuch, and are scratching their heads about whether he's the type of fellow who will pick up a club and go hunt heads if that's what actually needs to be done. He's just not very convincing and this could cost him 10% right there.

EW

[bjkeefe]

Originally Posted by Eastwest

(BTW, fair number of folks here are still stuck in trash-HRC mode. Get over it.

I think you need to clear your browser's cache. You seem to be reading old forum pages. Apart from reacting to Glenn's comments in this diavlog, no one has said boo about HRC in weeks, if not months.

You know who needs to "get over it?" You and Glenn. The more we learn about her campaign and observe how her top aides are behaving now, the more obvious it is what a bullet we dodged.

[Eastwest]

Originally Posted by bjkeefe

I think you need to clear your browser's cache. You seem to be reading old forum pages. Apart from reacting to Glenn's comments in this diavlog, no one has said boo about HRC in weeks, if not months.

Actually, since the current diavlog is what I was commenting upon, those responses are precisely what I was referring to (6 of first 15 posts devoted to the big sneer at HRC who hasn't been particularly relevant since early June). Why waste the time?

What you guys are failing to notice is that Loury was doing a critique of how Obama is campaigning against McCain and seeking the votes of those not already in his own camp. But, no, folks have to keep whining about history when the issue is Obama's stupid approach to how to win the General. Anything but deal with the issues with which you are confronted. Obama's campaigning like an ego-maniac amateur and condescending egghead and so he's just screwing himself when he didn't need to go about it that way at all. Aside from the starry-eyed members of his base, he is still perceived as artificial and insincere by the voters he's got to win over. This is where Glenn was coming from.

See below for what I meant by certain commenters being stuck in HRC-trashing mode. Again, get over it. We're talking about now.

EW

miceelf: "Loury seems to assume that things would have been better with his girl Clinton.

Who herself was just as much a product of image vs. substance. (her alleged foreign policy "experience" consisted of a variety of trips as first lady)."
sp3akthetruth: "I was thinking the same thing. He is infatuated with Clinton and his anger towards Obama is obvious every diavlog."
miceelf: "And the whole notion that Hillary Clinton would have been having the kind of high-minded disputation about the meaning of evil in taht forum is just laughable. He really doesn't seem to see how unfair and arbitrarily high a standard he is holding Obama to, relative to her."
brucds: "Unlike Hillary's ? Glenn. Get fucking real."
brucds: "If that made any sense at all, he'd already be toast and you'd be able to vote for your girl in November and wouldn't be harboring this bullshit bitterness toward Barack."
brucds: "Apparently Glenn's subscription to the Atlantic has run out, or he'd be embarrassed by his persistent Clintonphilia. The funny thing about so much of this discourse is that it's predicated on the notion that Hillary was the smart pol and Obama was an idealistic naif. This turned out to be total bullshit - Hillary couldn't manage a goddam presidential political campaign, i.e...."

[bjkeefe]

EW:

You can't even keep your bile flowing in the same direction. One the one hand, according to you, this board is a "miniscule [sic] puddle" "read almost solely by perhaps a hundred little minnows" who "assume they're [sic] chatter is somehow consequential even though, of course, it's not, not, not."

On the other, you get wildly bent out of shape when three (3) people say something unflattering about Clinton in response to the diavlog.

As you say: "Again, get over it. We're talking about now."

And yet you still have that stupid line in your sig.

Make up your mind.

[Eastwest]

BJ:

We'll just have to agree to disagree.

So you go back to the cheerleading squad and I'll keep calling them the way I see them.

BTW, your characterization of "wildly bent out of shape" is way off the mark. I only happened to mention parenthetically how the thread was starting right out refusing to acknowledge or deal with Loury's numerous valid points, preferring instead to "shoot the messenger" and engage in Clinton-Pique-Syndrome. (McWhorter & Loury both point this out as unjustified and old, old, old.) And then I countered TS's rant about what a sin it is for people like Loury, myself, and countless others to criticize what has indeed been unskillful campaigning.

I think what's becoming increasingly obvious is that the Obamaphiles are starting to suffer acute humiliation and embarrassment for having exercised such ridiculously poor judgement and so, rather than accept responsibility for being so foolishly naive, they get "wildly bent out of shape" and rush to the ramparts to shoot reality's ever-more-numerous massed troops laying siege to their goofy dream. They should have just had the sense to go for Biden a year ago and they wouldn't have this problem of a nail-biting contest when Dems should be ahead by a solid 15%.

Looks to me, given the Bradley effect, the entirely predictable onslought of right-wing trash-talk, and manipulation of social issues (abortion, gays, patriotism) over substance, Obama's going to do a spectacular face-plant with McCain winning without even having to break a sweat. The only prayer I see with Obama is in the one-on-one of debates, but, again, he's likely to go Al-Gorishly "wooden" and "lawyerly" and hurt rather than help himself.

It's not looking even a little bit pretty.

Cheers,
EW

[John M]

Dear My Friend East West,

Here's some straight talk:

he's as good as dead meat and bound to be the great shame of the Democratic party for decades to come for pulling the big con with no real juice to back it up.

You are 101 per cent right about B. Hussein Obama. Completely juiceless dead meat con artist. I couldn't agree more.

Thank you for your support. I am reaching across the aisle to shake your hand. You are a great pundit and patriot.

God Bless America,
John

[Eastwest]

Originally Posted by John M

Dear My Friend East West,

You are a great pundit and patriot.

God Bless America,
John

JM,

Really, you are too kind.

(Who is this guy, anyway? He's weirder and a good deal more suspect than that Thomson fellow from some months back. I think maybe they're the same, using multiple identities.)

No, I'm not a pundit. I just have little tolerance for political idolatry and so am prone to comment accordingly.

And, no, I'm not a "patriot," either (in any conventional sense of the term), as, although I might well be willing to die in attempting (nonviolently) to protect somebody from my country, I would surely never be willing to kill anyone for my country.

Fall-back position: Biden-Obama 2008. (My ticket-order is intentional, hoping against hope that Obama will, out of an uncharacteristic flush of humility and realism, allow the rest of his campaign and subsequent administration(s) to be strongly informed by the counsel of a wiser VP candidate.)

EW

[Ocean]

Originally Posted by John M

Dear My Friend East West,

Here's some straight talk:

You are 101 per cent right about B. Hussein Obama. Completely juiceless dead meat con artist. I couldn't agree more.

Thank you for your support. I am reaching across the aisle to shake your hand. You are a great pundit and patriot.

God Bless America,
John

Good try, my friend John M. The intellectual crowd is tough. You may need to change your tactic or perish... It's the Internets after all!

Love your enemy.
Ocean

[bjkeefe]

EW:

We'll just have to agree to disagree.

So I'll continue to support my candidate and you go back to carping from your little hovel of bitterness.

[Eastwest]

Originally Posted by bjkeefe

EW:

We'll just have to agree to disagree.

So I'll continue to support my candidate and you go back to carping from your little hovel of bitterness.

Well, frankly, few things would make me more happy than if Obama would please quit giving us real Democrats so damn many excuses for carping. I'd be happy to praise his finesse if he'd ever get around to displaying any.

And, no, I'm not bitter. I'm just so stunned that Obama, sitting pretty ever since early June for what should really be a fairly easy cruise to the White House, loads up both six-shooters and, so unnecessarily, just keeps drilling himself in the foot all summer.

And I just shudder to think what kinds of IEDs that jack-ass ex-preacher of his is going to set out for Obama with his October book release. (Yep, good ol Rev. Wright is going to get his revenge for being left in the ditch [where he belongs, I dare say].)

And, BJ: "hovel of bitterness"? Come on, man. Rise above it. Just because somebody doesn't approve of your horse in the big race doesn't mean you have to go all goofy with these unjustified imputations. Maybe chill a little guy. Take a break from the keyboard and go to the beach, perhaps? You Obama disciples really do seem to take yourselves so seriously here.

EW

[DoctorMoney]

Originally Posted by Eastwest

Well, frankly, few things would make me more happy than if Obama would please quit giving us real Democrats so damn many excuses for carping. I'd be happy to praise his finesse if he'd ever get around to displaying any.

And, no, I'm not bitter. I'm just so stunned that Obama, sitting pretty ever since early June for what should really be a fairly easy cruise to the White House, loads up both six-shooters and, so unnecessarily, just keeps drilling himself in the foot all summer.

Real Democrats? Seriously?

As someone who's never been 'the real' anything in a political process, I just gotta say that dealing with folks like you is a necessary evil. When we've got a two party system, no one gets to call themselves authentic, though plenty try anyway.

Christ, I feel like our whole lives are spent dealing with the fools who think of themselves as the Real Americans or the Real Progressives or the Real Patriots. And the only thing those groups consistently have in common is their desperate need for validation.

[miceelf]

Originally Posted by Eastwest

And, BJ: "hovel of bitterness"? Come on, man. Rise above it. Just because somebody doesn't approve of your horse in the big race doesn't mean you have to go all goofy with these unjustified imputations. Maybe chill a little guy.

EW

This from the person who said: "what's becoming increasingly obvious is that the Obamaphiles are starting to suffer acute humiliation and embarrassment for having exercised such ridiculously poor judgement and so, rather than accept responsibility for being so foolishly naive, they get "wildly bent out of shape" and rush to the ramparts to shoot reality's ever-more-numerous massed troops laying siege to their goofy dream."

Hovel of bitterness requires a good deal less psychoanalysis than does that bit of babble.

But back and forth aside- Loury (and it seems you) are holding Obama to an impossible standard. As I noted, he simultaneously criticized Obama for not being nuanced enough (!!!!) about evil while praising McCain for his snappy and empty one-liners.

It would be great if Loury (and you) were pleased with anything Obama did. But I just don't see how it can happen. If the only way he can please you is to step down, then once again- you're expecting something from him that one couldn't expect from ANY other politician.

[bjkeefe]

EW:

Just because somebody doesn't approve of your horse in the big race doesn't mean you have to go all goofy with these unjustified imputations. Maybe chill a little guy. Take a break from the keyboard and go to the beach, perhaps? You Obama disciples really do seem to take yourselves so seriously here.

I feel the same way about you. You're locked into your own narrative and have no compunction about replaying it at every drop of a hat. You never do anything but caricature those of us who prefer to push back against the rightwing smear machine, the perennial Democratic dithering, and a media that would rather obsess over minor shortcomings than address the giant failings of John McCain.

You are unable to grasp the idea that anyone could simply prefer one candidate over another and might wish to speak up on his behalf and in his defense. Instead, because things aren't perfectly to your liking, you insist on pompously pronouncing your dissatisfactions with the candidate who is closer to sharing what you claim are your views, rather than acknowledging just how much worse the only other choice would be. You'll spend from now until November putting all your efforts into helping the GOP denigrate Obama, motivated by little beyond a wish to be able to say, "I told you so." You're all about smugness and self-satisfaction.

You like to adopt this supercilious air of being above it all. But really, you're not doing anything more than regurgitating what spews forth from the wingnuts every day. And as long as you insist upon doing that, I'll pass on the beach. Not to mention every other piece of advice you might offer.