Anti-Obama hysteria: From the GB to the Republican mainstream

[lavender]

That's your debate response?

My debate response.

The first debate - draw.
VP debate - Biden one
The second pres debate - no contest, hands down, Obama schooled McCain. Obama actually seemed stronger on terrorism than John McCain. Obama seemed stronger on Iran than John McCain. And Obama hit McCain with a right hook that McCain tense up visibly when he hit back with bomb bomb bomb, Iran. And this doesn't even begin to state how much Obama schooled McCain on health care and energy and especially the question about what will you require us to sacrifice. When I heard that question I said - Obama talk about conservation, talk about how we have to do this energy thing together. And, voila!

 

[lavender]

What did you think of this, Lav? You too, WE.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/10/07/that-one-mccain-calls-oba_n_132802.html

I made a comment as soon as I heard it. I was glad Toobin picked up on it and brought it to the forefront in CNN. Apparently Matthews was talking about it as well. Didn't check the other networks but it seems the blogosphere has blown up about it.

McCain clearly has contempt for Obama. He's suffering from what Hillary did at one point - they feel they deserve and are entitled to the role and some rookie talking about change is beating him.

Newsflash - this guy has good ideas and that's why people want him in the White House.

 

[Shugahhhh]

Bad, bad mistake. You can hate the guy all you want, but you need to do a better job of hiding it.

Outright contempt doesn't go down well with undecideds. And if the younger, black man had said that to McCain? Oh man.

I think that has to be one of the lowest moments in American politics. And a close second: I think it was the 2nd question of the debate, the youngish black man asked what the bailout would do for average people. When McCain responded to him, he made that incredibly condescending comment that he probably never heard of Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac. I was flabbergasted.

I'll google the transcript so I can quote it verbatim if necessary.

 

[Sonny Limatina]

Marc Ambinder--who noted the "that one" remark with the same affrontery while live-blogging the debate--just posted some some context for it:

(BTW: McCain uses "that one" frequently in his stump speeches; the set-up is usually clearer, as McCain refers to Obama's being one of the senators who supported it, not McCain -- as in, if you had to guess who supported the Bush-Cheney '05 energy bill, it's that senator, not this senator. But it came off awkwardly on stage tonight.)

http://marcambinder.theatlantic.com/

 

[Shugahhhh]

I made a comment as soon as I heard it. I was glad Toobin picked up on it and brought it to the forefront in CNN. Apparently Matthews was talking about it as well. Didn't check the other networks but it seems the blogosphere has blown up about it.

McCain clearly has contempt for Obama. He's suffering from what Hillary did at one point - they feel they deserve and are entitled to the role and some rookie talking about change is beating him.

Newsflash - this guy has good ideas and that's why people want him in the White House.

I heard Matthews raise it, so I googled to see if it would show up...nothing yet on the MSM sites or I would have cited one of them first since folks get in a tizzy about the Huff Post.

I am a bit confused by the conventional wisdom that Obama came out of nowhere. I consider myself only informed, and I'm by no means a party activist in recent years...but I heard about Obama when he was still in the Ill. legislature as someone to watch, an up-and-comer, etc. Have the majority been in a vacuum??

The tone of the Clinton campaign was very disappointing in the last couple of months, I became almost sorry that I voted for her in the primary. But yeah, absolute entitlement in both cases...and arrogance. I'm really hating arrogance today.

 

[Shugahhhh]

Marc Ambinder--who noted the "that one" remark with the same affrontery while live-blogging the debate--just posted some some context for it:

(BTW: McCain uses "that one" frequently in his stump speeches; the set-up is usually clearer, as McCain refers to Obama's being one of the senators who supported it, not McCain -- as in, if you had to guess who supported the Bush-Cheney '05 energy bill, it's that senator, not this senator. But it came off awkwardly on stage tonight.)

http://marcambinder.theatlantic.com/

I don't know if context makes it any more palatable. Like WE said, if it had been the other way around...it certainly wouldn't have been explained away by context. We're only what, two weeks past lipstick on a pig?

 

[Sonny Limatina]

I don't know if context makes it any more palatable. Like WE said, if it had been the other way around...it certainly wouldn't have been explained away by context. We're only what, two weeks past lipstick on a pig?

Understood. It was a colossally bad line. But just to be fair, it was bad in part because it was botched. (Let us not forget what a botched punchline did for John Kerry in 2004. Context did nothing to erase it, but it did have a slightly different flavor in that context than it did in isolation.)

 

[Wrong Element]

I don't know if context makes it any more palatable. Like WE said, if it had been the other way around...it certainly wouldn't have been explained away by context. We're only what, two weeks past lipstick on a pig?

I forgot to mention another important part of the context: that it was a Southern audience. They would not have liked that sort of disrespect from Obama--not that they liked it much from McCain either.

I heard Matthews raise it, so I googled to see if it would show up...nothing yet on the MSM sites or I would have cited one of them first since folks get in a tizzy about the Huff Post.

My journalism instincts tell me that the McCain people are going to be asked about little else tomorrow. Reporters always look for "moments" in debates.

 

[Shugahhhh]

Understood. It was a colossally bad line. But just to be fair, it was bad in part because it was botched. (Let us not forget what a botched punchline did for John Kerry in 2004. Context did nothing to erase it, but it did have a slightly different flavor in that context than it did in isolation.)

Also understood. I'm appalled nonetheless, and I'd bet I won't be alone on that.

 

[lavender]

I heard Matthews raise it, so I googled to see if it would show up...nothing yet on the MSM sites or I would have cited one of them first since folks get in a tizzy about the Huff Post.

I am a bit confused by the conventional wisdom that Obama came out of nowhere. I consider myself only informed, and I'm by no means a party activist in recent years...but I heard about Obama when he was still in the Ill. legislature as someone to watch, an up-and-comer, etc. Have the majority been in a vacuum??

The tone of the Clinton campaign was very disappointing in the last couple of months, I became almost sorry that I voted for her in the primary. But yeah, absolute entitlement in both cases...and arrogance. I'm really hating arrogance today.

I only became familiar with Obama in about 2002 or 2003. I voted for Clinton in the primary too and realized 2 weeks later I made a mistake. I shifted Obama before the primary was over.

 

[Sonny Limatina]

Also understood. I'm appalled nonetheless, and I'd bet I won't be alone on that.

You won't. It will be the coat hook on which the rest of the analysis is hung, because--as with Kerry--it cuts so economically into already-perceived weaknesses in McCain's brand. I'm just saying that--as with Kerry--the statement itself won't be the real problem. The brand that allowed it to be spun that way will.

 

[Shugahhhh]

I forgot to mention another important part of the context: that it was a Southern audience. They would not have liked that sort of disrespect from Obama--not that they liked it much from McCain either.

He wouldn't have been seen as just disrespectful; rather, he would have been perceived as uppity as well, don't you think? I agree with you, though, I don't think that remark played well with anyone who isn't a card-carrying member of the KKK.

My journalism instincts tell me that the McCain people are going to be asked about little else tomorrow. Reporters always look for "moments" in debates.

It will be interesting to see the public reaction to this as well.

 

[Shugahhhh]

I only became familiar with Obama in about 2002 or 2003. I voted for Clinton in the primary too and realized 2 weeks later I made a mistake. I shifted Obama before the primary was over.

Buyer's remorse. I was relieved she lost and, by the end, was furious at her reluctance to give it up already. It was hard to let go of the Clinton loyalty, I really liked Bill as a president. But I do believe it turned out in the best interest of the country. Whew.

You won't. It will be the coat hook on which the rest of the analysis is hung, because--as with Kerry--it cuts so economically into already-perceived weaknesses in McCain's brand. I'm just saying that--as with Kerry--the statement itself won't be the real problem. The brand that allowed it to be spun that way will.

Similarly, it's all beginning to have a cumulative effect and painting a very ugly picture of that ticket.

 

[Sonny Limatina]

Buyer's remorse. I was relieved she lost and, by the end, was furious at her reluctance to give it up already. It was hard to let go of the Clinton loyalty, I really liked Bill as a president. But I do believe it turned out in the best interest of the country. Whew.



Similarly, it's all beginning to have a cumulative effect and painting a very ugly picture of that ticket.

Interestingly, as with Clinton, the race was lost months before it was won. Clinton lost on Super Tuesday. She just took months to discover the math that Obama's campaign knew inexorably favored them from there out. I'll never forgive her for that. Imagine what would have happened if she'd bowed out and rustled up all those 18 million voters on behalf of Obama instead of herself.

With McCain, he lost by winning. He's a great senator. A lousy candidate. A lousy president. Imagine how his brand would have benefitted from Romney winning the primary and McCain continuing to "maverick" his way through his career. Few people have allowed themselves to truly appreciate what a weak candidate he is and has been from the beginning. The economy has certainly hastened his demise, but he was never going to win. Obama may yet lose--racism and an act of terrorism on American soil are still his Achilles heels--but it will not be because McCain won.

 

[Shugahhhh]

Interestingly, as with Clinton, the race was lost months before it was won. Clinton lost on Super Tuesday. She just took months to discover the math that Obama's campaign knew inexorably favored them from there out. I'll never forgive her for that. Imagine what would have happened if she'd bowed out and rustled up all those 18 million voters on behalf of Obama instead of herself.

With McCain, he lost by winning. He's a great senator. A lousy candidate. A lousy president. Imagine how his brand would have benefitted from Romney winning the primary and McCain continuing to "maverick" his way through his career. Few people have allowed themselves to truly appreciate what a weak candidate he is and has been from the beginning. The economy has certainly hastened his demise, but he was never going to win. Obama may yet lose--racism and an act of terrorism on American soil are still his Achilles heels--but it will not be because McCain won.

I wouldn't have been happy if Clinton had exited after Super Tuesday. She was a good and viable candidate in a pool that was somewhat lackluster with the exception of Obama. I would have felt cheated if she threw in the towel so easily, and Obama wouldn't have felt like a "choice." Also, in an odd way, the primary campaign is where Obama really got his chops by virtue of how tough it got when Hillary won the swing states.

What really hurt the party, IMO, were the negative attacks directed at Obama, and Clinton's insistence on hanging in after it was painfully obvious to everyone that she was done. Both those things, but particularly the first, made it more difficult for Clinton supporters to switch canoes without feeling disloyal. Moreover, it also made both Clinton's subsequent "support" of Obama less credible. Bill especially. Geez. I will say that I was proud of her at the convention.

*sigh*

I feel like I'm all about emotional responses today. The effects of the past week are catching up with me.

 

[Sonny Limatina]

You're right: Clinton did Obama a favor in terms of seasoning him. But by that measure, he'd have been similarly seasoned by engaging in a longer general election campaign. And Hillary--having lost on the math--HAD to go negative, for the same reasons McCain is now. So seasoning in the primary = going negative in the primary. It's a tough call. I think she should have taken the honorable path, but I don't share many people's romance with the Clintons. Smart people, for sure, probably on the "right" side, but unable to see past themselves (my opinion, of course).

Obama is a brilliant organizer--and will, if elected, be counted among our smartest presidents. I find some disparity between his claims of meta-partisanship and his constant reputation-management--his need to be the smartest kid in class, at the expense of the long view--but nonetheless, he'll still be my first ever vote for a major-party candidate for president.

I admit to being worried that he's something of a cipher--a symbol of what people make of him, rather than something solid within himself. And I can't shake the memory of the other "one of our smartest presidents"--Carter--who was and has been much more successful as a symbol and community organizer than as leader of the free world.

Having said that, I also admit to the following: I can't wait to have a black president and first lady and watch all the entitled white racist bastards shake in their shoes that their days on top are over.

Did I just type that? Yeah, I did.

 

[Shugahhhh]

You're right: Clinton did Obama a favor in terms of seasoning him. But by that measure, he'd have been similarly seasoned by engaging in a longer general election campaign. And Hillary--having lost on the math--HAD to go negative, for the same reasons McCain is now. So seasoning in the primary = going negative in the primary. It's a tough call. I think she should have taken the honorable path, but I don't share many people's romance with the Clintons. Smart people, for sure, probably on the "right" side, but unable to see past themselves (my opinion, of course).

Obama is a brilliant organizer--and will, if elected, be counted among our smartest presidents. I find some disparity between his claims of meta-partisanship and his constant reputation-management--his need to be the smartest kid in class, at the expense of the long view--but nonetheless, he'll still be my first ever vote for a major-party candidate for president.

I admit to being worried that he's something of a cipher--a symbol of what people make of him, rather than something solid within himself. And I can't shake the memory of the other "one of our smartest presidents"--Carter--who was and has been much more successful as a symbol and community organizer than as leader of the free world.

Having said that, I also admit to the following: I can't wait to have a black president and first lady and watch all the entitled white racist bastards shake in their shoes that their days on top are over.

Did I just type that? Yeah, I did.

I'm right there with you. It will be poetic justice, and I'm going to savor every minute of it.

Your observation in re: Obama is interesting. I have to chew on that a bit. I'm so tired right now, I can't process as well as I'd like to. I need to go to bed.

Thanks for the conversation, it was a nice way to end the day.

 

[Sonny Limatina]

Agreed. See you soon, Shugahhh...