From the Washington Post:
Is Obama overrated as a candidate?
By Chris Cillizza, Published: October 7
In his closing remarks at the first debate in Denver last week, President Obama uttered the following sentence: “Four years ago, I said that I’m not a perfect man and I wouldn’t be a perfect president.”
For anyone who has watched Obama campaign for a second term this year, the phrase is old hat — part of the president’s seemingly self-effacing acknowledgment that he has, is and will continue to make mistakes but that he does so in the service of trying to do the right thing.
But the now-familiar phrase took on a different — and more troubling — meaning for the president in the debate as it capped a decidedly desultory performance that left even his most loyal allies wondering what was wrong with him.
Obama’s debate performance also raised a bigger question: Is he overrated as a candidate?
Four years ago, that question would have been unimaginable. After all, this was a man who in his first run for national office not only outmaneuvered the Clinton family to win the Democratic presidential nomination but also went on to claim a 365-electoral-vote general-election landslide against Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz). And, oh by the way, Obama did all that while raising $750 million (including $500 million online) — a sum that shattered all fundraising records.
He beat the second string Clinton and the 72-year-old McCain and he sucked up a whole lot of Wall Street cash!
Let me make a prediction: Obama will do better and Romney worse in the next debate, as regression toward the mean kicks in.
Let me make another prediction: the reasons Obama went from nobody to President in four years without actually doing anything -- recall that it took Ulysses S. Grant eight years to go from nobody to President, during which he took Vicksburg -- will continue to go unexplored.
Posts
35 comments:
Baby boomers in particular projected all their fantasies on him. He can't be anything but the greatest - because if he's not, then liberals will have to face reality, do you expect that?
Romney will continue to whoop his ass.
No regression to the mean, the gulf will only get wider.
I saw a video from Obama's campaign trail, he sounded positively unhinged as he yelled at the audience.
One longtime Jewish observer of the political scene, who did not want to be identified, said admiringly that "Jews made him. Wherever you look, there is a Jewish presence."
http://www.chicagojewishnews.com/story.htm?sid=212226&id=252218
"Let me make a prediction: Obama will do better and Romney worse in the next debate, as regression toward the mean kicks in."
Obama will lose again in the next debate, as regression towards the mean kicks in.
The comparison to Grant is amusing. Grant was a real military hero who rode his well-earned reputation as an outstanding battlefield commander to the White House. His presidency, however, was a disaster, marred by numerous scandals and a severe recession. Sounds sort of like Obama, minus the military hero stuff, of course.
"From nowhere to something in under four years."
You know the answer to that one as much as we do. Stop teasing, Steve.
happens in threes
rushton, hobsbawm, genovese
http://www.weeklystandard.com/articles/historian-taught-history_653811.html
The next one will be a mixture of domestic and foreign policy within a town hall format. The last one will be foreign policy only and will be moderated by Bob Schieffer.
I think it is likely that the last debate will be the worst for Barack Obama. Schieffer is not as serious and professional as Lehrer, and Obama will be more prepared, but it won't matter.
While there has been some good reporting on Libya, it has mostly been dry and not critical of Obama, excepting CNN somewhat. The narrative kinda-sorta points to H. Clinton and the state department.
The same bubble will be more costly to Obama than on economy and Mitt Romney is dying to bring up all the things that would have been said by the press had Obama been a Republican.
When we hear some in the press call foreign policy Obama's strong suit, this means there is an epic echo chamber setting up a terrible shellacking.
There aren't the half-way plausible excuses on foreign policy as there are with the economy. There is no Bush record on Libyan or Egyptian intervention.
The number one theme of the last debate, and probably even the second, because it is so rich in symbolism is that Obama went to a fundraiser the night after the first ambassador was killed in thirty-three years.
We'll also hear about CNN waltzing up and finding Ambassador Steven's diary.
Mitt has shown that he is even more anxious to take the fight to Obama over foreign policy than even the economy, probably because of the huge opening. I read he's giving a speech today; I'm not surprised, he's been chomping at the bit.
NYTimes is pushing Stereotype Threat
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/07/opinion/sunday/intelligence-and-the-stereotype-threat.html
"Baby boomers in particular projected all their fantasies on him. He can't be anything but the greatest - because if he's not, then liberals will have to face reality, do you expect that?"
No. "If" Obama is not the greatest, then the baby boomers' denial mechanism will just go into overdrive. It's their first, last and best defense against reality.
Unwin categorizes religious belief in four levels:
Zoism – subhuman, animal level culture.A zoistic society has no religious beliefs – it is not that they do not believe in the supernatural, but rather that they do not believe in the natural. At a zoistic level of culture all influential and high prestige people engage in magical thinking, attributing to themselves and other people capabilities rationalists would consider supernatural. They dispose of the dead like garbage, and do not tend the graves of the dead.
Manism. Some special men are attributed supernatural powers, much more than regular men. These men engage in mystical chants, and rattle magical stones and necklaces, as for example, the expert witness in a silicone or asbestos lawsuit. These special men can smell out other men who use their magical powers to do harm, thus witchfinders and radioactive pollution.
Deism: We all know what deism is. Deism with god far away, a god who dumped problems on us and commands us to solve them as best we can, is pretty close to being rationalism.
Rationalism: There is no supernatural, or if there is it is far, far away, and long, long ago, in the next world, not this one.
http://blog.jim.com/culture/christianity-yields-to-zoism.html
"Is (Obama) overrated as a candidate? Four years ago, that question would have been unimaginable."
Oh really? I seem to remember our Steve wrote a whole book about this very subject 4 years ago. Wow, Steve, you must have one heck of an imagination!
Seriously, though - I predict Obama will win because the MSM is filled with left-wing hacks like Cillizza who will use any means necessary to carry D'Won over the finish line. Pathetic, innit?
I truly begin to suspect I am a paranoid when I contemplate Obama's patent mediocrity and then consider the blazing trail that was laid out for him after his graduation from Harvard Law School. Almost every step of his "career" after that, except for the abortive run against Bobby what's-his-name, seems part of a well planned and executed plan to get him the Presidency; each step of which required somebody getting him access to positions he was unqualified for both prospectively in light of his past performance and retrospectively in light of his eventual job performance. There have to have been powerful people exercising influence behind the scenes at every stage of this process and many lesser lights facilitating things. I only hope I live long enough to see some of this revealed by an appropriately assiduous journalist or an insider informant.
"Let me make a prediction: Obama will do better and Romney worse in the next debate, as regression toward the mean kicks in."
The second debate is the so-called town hall debate. Gallup supplies an audience purportedly selected from undecided survey subjects. That means the questions will be formulated by rather dim inquisitors with a low fund of general information. I mean, who claims to be undecided at this point except dissemblers and the willfully ignorant.
The second debate will be very different from the first. The first debate was highly g-loaded and selected for a winner. The second is more of a beauty pageant to see who can charm the audience. Despite being 15 years older, Romney in a suit looks in far better shape than the emaciated, ball headed Obama who appears to be channeling the consumptive Elijah Muhammad. Nevertheless, it will be a much easier format for Obama to show his Magic Negro charm, unless the audience decides for some reason it wants to cut up rough with him.
I am looking forward to the foreign policy debate. Romney seems to be aggressively working out his positions on the campaign trail so no doubt he is studying up for the big smack down. Authorizing the death of Bin Laden will buy Obama exactly nothing, given that most of the key intelligence work was initiated under Bush. And with the publication of "Mark Owen's" book we now know the operation was boxed and tied up with a bow by a lowly Republican female intelligence analyst and executed by a load of Republican soldiers. And Mr Redistribution redistributed all the credit to himself for saying "Make it so" at a point when the whole thing seemed like a slam dunk. No mention that he sat on the info for two months while aides pressured him to act.
The white liberals who vote for Obama don't care how imperfect he is. The reason they support him is that they can therefore convince themselves that they are not racist even though they don't live near many black people and have few black friends other than the ones they work with.
I saw the first 40 minutes of that debate and I didn't notice anybody winning. Maybe I'm extremely imperceptive, maybe Romney started winning after I found better things to do with my time that evening, or maybe the media has switched its allegiance.
But he's still perfect in his imperfection of near-perfection.
You don't even have to be an adult to watch Obama and realize he has a thin skin.
This is a short video of his address to the Hollywood group at his fundraiser last night. When he delivers what is meant to be self-effacing poke at his poor debate performance, notice he finds no humor in the line at all, as though it's killing him to deliver the line.
http://thehill.com/video/campaign/260685-obama-jokes-about-debate-showing-during-calif-campaign-swing
obama is president because of white guilt about slavery. Of course only 1.5 pct of americans ever owned slaves, a fact showed down the Memory Hole.
I've always hated the townhall Presidential debate format as "acting" is the most important skill.
Why the hell didn't people understand that something was painfully wrong with a candidate comfortable with campaigning in Europe for the Presidency, with standing in front of faux-Greek columns or any damn Greek columns, with addressing the masses (damn, as an American it was all so embarrassing to me) in a football stadium, and finally, with a mere mortal telling Americans (again, I was so embarrassed) that because of his election, the waters of the oceans would begin to recede and the planet would begin to heal.
If you have half a brain, you don't need a working press to report that there's something wrong with that kind of behavior in a Presidential candidage and a President of a Constitutional representative democracy.
That he beat McCain-Palin didn't upset me. That he acted like Julius Caesar (an unaccomplished Caesar at that) while Americans should have disdained that behavior is what frightened me.
"Almost every step of his "career" after that, except for the abortive run against Bobby what's-his-name, seems part of a well planned and executed plan to get him the Presidency; each step of which required somebody getting him access to positions he was unqualified for both prospectively in light of his past performance and retrospectively in light of his eventual job performance."
It's not necessary to believe he was groomed by some sort of cabal. If he had been, surely they wouldn't have had him lose his first election.
Occam's Razor says this is simply the way people like Obama are treated in anti-racist America. If you're black -- but not too black -- and reasonably intelligent and well-spoken in the eyes of white elites, you get pushed to the head of the class, over and over. It's happening everywhere, in local elections, judicial appointments, academia, the media, and so on. Wherever whites find intelligent, reasonable blacks, they promote them as high as possible to prove their own lack of racism. That's the whole point of affirmative action. Obama is just one of many, who happened to be in the right place at the right time to get boosted even further than most.
"Baby boomers in particular projected all their fantasies on him. He can't be anything but the greatest - because if he's not, then liberals will have to face reality"
yep that sums the dynamic
a generation of thuggish, shallow, cowardly, materially besotted boomers poured their self-serving ideo-political bullshit into this vat of Presidential Nothingness . . . all their deluded, disastrous, failed nonsense about feminism, identity polticis, Goddess Ekwalitee, race, humanism, and utter separation from God
their pathetic egos are fully invested in this walking turd, and in his horrid wife, and for him to be wrong (about anything) is for THEM to be wrong
and as we've seen the past half-century, these narcissistic nitwits cannot possibly be wrong about ANYTHING
the right-wing let all this go down these many decades, enabling or maintaining silence, filling their pockets while the nation was destroyed by this generation of solipsistic vipers who not only never grew up . . . they never grew an inch
now you are skrewed
"obama is president because of white guilt about slavery."
I don't think it's guilt at all. My friends are white, female, college educated, Democrats, and liberal. They feel no guilt over slavery. They loved Obama, voted for him enthusiastically because like many Americans and especially liberals, they fall into this "I want the world to love us" trap.
These are the people who claim they hate flag waving by the right but who are ardent flag waving Americans when they sense Europe (never hear them say they give a damn what Asian or other countries think of us, just European countries, esp. Western European) likes the cut of an American President.
These people go to Europe very 5 or so years, one of them every year, and it matters very much to them that "we are liked."
Certainly candidate Obama stood as symbol to them that America had shed its past, but they feel no guilt about that past--thank God, they shouldn't. However, they liked that he sounded more articulate than GW Bush, that he spoke of ending the wars, that he looked good, that he lay prone in front of the rest of the world.
They hate cowboys--this is the Bay Area of California, after all. They are also public employees.
No, no guilt about slavery--just a stupid yearning to be loved as Americans. It's very much a liberal female thing and a beta male thing.
Except for a few neo-libs and neo-cons in the press, is anyone really excited by the substance of Romney's speech today?
It just made me feel tired.
He'll look like a leader, and given how the "anti-war" movement turned out to only be a cynical "anti-Bush" movement, looking competent as a leader is all that matters. Very few actually care about foreign policy and war.
This is funny:
"Twitter Explodes After Black Actress Endorses Romney as the ‘Only Choice for Your Future’"
The funniest/saddest tweet of horror: “This hurts but you a Romney lover and you slutting yourself to the white man only proves why no black man married u"
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/twitter-explodes-after-black-actress-endorses-romney-as-the-only-choice-for-your-future/
There seems to be a confusion in the exerpted article (and generally these days) between achievement and popularity.
The 'achievements' listed just relate to popularity and making money. They aren't achievements at all.
In the final analysis the Beatles weren't 'good' because they sold a lot of records, they were good because 'The White Album' is a classic.
Lady Gaga on the other hand is no good. But she has made a lot of money. Like Obamajandro
@Cail Coreshev: "If you're black -- but not too black -- and reasonably intelligent and well-spoken in the eyes of white elites, you get pushed to the head of the class, over and over."
Right. Every corporation is looking for a black CEO. Every university s looking for a black president. Every Fire Department and Police Department is looking for a black Chief. Every NFL, MLB, & NBA team is looking for a black coach. Every news station is looking for a black anchorperson. The pool of qualified blacks for these positions is small, these organizations are not all going to find that black leader.
when obama is going around giving all these speeches and doing all these fund raisers and showing up for all these television appearances on talk shows, which seems to be the only things he does for the last several months...
who is running the country?
i don't think he was elected due to 'white guilty' or some desire to be loved, or anything like that. whites didnt even vote for him in the majority - he was elected by third world americans primarily, and the process will repeat this november, and probably will repeat for the next democratic candidate who takes up the mantle in 2016. the threshold where the republican party either has to change dramatically to accommodate the 'new americans' or diminish into total irrelevance is approaching, or may have already been breached.
Obama might do OK in the town hall format, or at least not be a disaster. I suspect he loses the foreign policy debate, though probably not in the same epic manner as the first. He should at least be able to correct basic errors of presentation.
" The pool of qualified blacks for these positions is small, these organizations are not all going to find that black leader."
I thought they didn't have to be qualified?
" The pool of qualified blacks for these positions is small, these organizations are not all going to find that black leader."
I thought they didn't have to be qualified?
They have to be felony-free, married and living in the same home with all of their children.
That leaves out 95% of black males, especially you.
You have to be married and living in the same home with all your children to be a CEO? What companies do you invest in?
They feel no guilt over slavery .. they are also public employees.
You're wrong. The people you know became public employees because their teachers taught them that capitalism, the profit motive, is evil. As part of the same indoctrination, they were taught that whites had to make amends for slavery and Jim Crow. The favorite phrase was "the legacy of slavery," which, even 100 yrs. later, was used to excuse blacks from assimilating to white values. This is called Black Exceptionalism, which is what your friends are engaging in when they exempt Obama from any of the same expectations they'd attach to a white candidate. You need to learn some recent social history.
Post a Comment