Last week really ought to have been the end of the McCain campaign. With the whole country feeling (and its financial class acting) as if we lived in a sweltering, bankrupt banana republic, and with this misery added to the generally Belarusian atmosphere that surrounds any American trying to board a train, catch a plane, fill a prescription, or get a public servant or private practitioner on the phone, it was surely the moment for the supposedly reform candidate to assume a commanding position. And the Republican nominee virtually volunteered to assist that outcome by making an idiot of himself several times over, moving from bovine and Panglossian serenity about the state of the many, many crippled markets to sudden bursts of pointless hyperactivity such as the irrelevant demand to sack the chairman of the Securities and Exchange Commission.
And yet, and unless I am about to miss some delayed "groundswell" or mood shift, none of this has translated into any measurable advantage for the Democrat.
For the moment, let's leave aside, the fact that this whole "Why isn't Obama dominating?" is about the oldest, most hackneyed analysis available in the media-verse. The claim is demonstrably false. Like factually wrong. The rest of the column isn't any better. And this isn't the some throwaway claim, it's the central thesis of the column. The piece's very title--Is Obama Another Dukakis--is a cliche. What do we make of a first-rate writer delivering fifth-rate punditry?
I have more to say about this. But I need to calm down and think.
UPDATE: Lot of strawmanship going on below, and borderline trolling. For those who want to change the subject, let's simplify. This is the claim Hitchens makes in his lede and the one I cited in my post:
And yet, and unless I am about to miss some delayed "groundswell" or mood shift, none of this has translated into any measurable advantage for the DemocratThat claim is directly contradicted by the news of the past week. It is literally false. Now I know some of you are flat-earthers, but there needs to be some semblance of basic facts here. Either you have evidence that bolsters the claim, or you don't. Calling Obama "a typical politician" or changing the subject doesn't cut it. Show your work. A little honor among combatants, please.
The Beautiful Struggle: A Father, Two Sons, and an Unlikely Road to Manhood 
Hitchens has been a worthless hack for years who largely coasts on the strength of his earlier work, so this isn't too surprising.
Ta-Nehisi,
Cheer up and watch Chris Rock on Letterman.
Eh, he knows good and well that if Barack were an older white governer, he'd be leading by 20 points. He knows it has nothing to do with Barack's personality. He's just trying to do two things here: 1.) spread doubt and fear among those who support the guy he doesn't want to win; and 2.) bait Obama into being less "gutless", in which case we'd hearing about voters running from an angry, radical candidate.
Hitchens spins for th other side. Ignore him.
Once again, pay it no mind. One of the great things about this race is that it's forcing people to show there true colors and I want that. I want this behavior, unvarnished, unambiguous on our historical record. There is no fake nationalism ala
9/11, no "we didn't know" or where unsure ala the 2000 election. It's nearly impossible to obscure ones own biases and agendas this time around. In this setting, arguably one of the lowest points in our country's history without being in a totally show stopping crisis on all levels, our behaviors will say a lot retrospectively. People like Hitchens and others seem like they are playing at history while the rest of us grapple with living it.
In re Hitchens: Alcohol + Time = Dumb
Hitchens just wants Huggy Bear to be Daddy Bear. Why else do you think he hit the gym, fixed his teeth and got a haircut?
Sounds like someone needs to be waterboarded again!
If Obama isn't up 60 points, it's a telling indictment of his candidacy. They're going to keep repeating this until more of you pick it up, since "she killed the bridge to nowhere" didn't stick.
Off topic: Can we get Palin to debate Schweitzer on energy? This is supposed to be her big issue, but when it comes up they quickly veer off to "you can see Russia from Alaska." And talking to Hannity(?) about how oil is fungible but it would be nice not to export any, she seemed deeply clueless about everything except record oil = good for Alaska.
How can the premise be demonstrably false when every poll shows the race in a dead heat within the margin of error for the polls?
The country is sick and tired of the Bush Administration, its among the most unpopular in modern history, its mistakes and lies are legion.
How can it NOT be a reasonable question to ask then why Obama isn't the favorite by double digits?
Democrats will never dominate an election, they tell the people what they don't want to hear while Republicans stroke their G Spot endlessly and tell them all is fine with America. In a nation of idiots that are more interested in who wins American Idol than what's happening to their wealth, this shouldn't be surprising. Democrats will always have an uphill battle since their competition happens to appeal to the lowest common denominator.
As for Hitchens, the guy hates anything Arab. Barack Obama sounds Arab, so there you go. About the only thing I agree with him on is his views on religion where he's remarkably on point.
Hitchens is Hitchens. He's already shown us numerous times just who he is, and why. 'Nuff said.
To put it another way, why would we give any credence to a man that cheered our runup to Iraq with an almost unequaled fervor when he calls anyone hesitant? I would be like listening to an alcoholic calling someone gutless for not having one last "for the road". We know what Hitchens would be doing if he were in Obama's situation. We see that in how he lives his life and how he interacts with those around him. There's a reason he's not the one running for President, and there's an even better reason not to take any advice he gives Obama a second thought.
Oh, and br stole my thunder. I was also going to ask what Ta-Nehisi thought about Chris Rock.
Why does anyone even bother with Christopher Hitchens anymore? Someone needs to explain why he's taken seriously at all. Don't waste your time on him.
If Hitchens is so great, why isn't he ever on MTP? He's a good BS'er. Just because he is a good dinner party guest doesn't mean that his word is golden. I never understood the infatuation with him, anyway.
Classic Hitchens--he thinks that rhetorical flourishes overwhelm the huddled ignorant masses. He tends to have contempt for eveyone and everything, so this shouldn't come as much of a surprise. Here's a thought, MAYBE just maybe watching our financial system meltdown last week made people think about other things than who they will vote for. Not everyone is as obssessed with politics as pundit-heads...
Lib: If Cheney were running on the Bush legacy, you could ask that. McCain made his reputation on being a maverick; he's the best R choice to run not on Bush's legacy. In polls at every level, generic D does well against generic R; put a name and face and record and positions on those, and Smith, D, is in a dead heat with Jones, R.
The Republicans are good at running elections. As an independent, I admire their ability to cut the crap and unite behind a candidate even if they agree on just 2/3 of the issues; it explains a lot of how they've held onto as much power as they have while the country shifted to center left.
I'm not sure I agree with that....I would say that on many 'generic' issues that the public is polled on a majority support Democratic positions...don't destroy the enviroment, help the poor. The rub comes when it moves into specific policy issues where people tend not to want their tax dollars to go to the Democrats feel good/help the poor type programs, which is why Republicans do so well in reality.
I also think that the country is overall a lot more conservative than Democrats believe it is, which is why they're always shocked when they don't win the presidential election. I don't see a shift in the country to the left, it has been centrist leaning conservative for decades.
I agree that overall Republicans have run much better campaigns than Democrats.
My opinion is that Democrats are by and large in denial mode about the fact that a lot of people have serious reservations about Obama and his experience. Experience is not a secret code for racism, its a legitimate concern. I also agree w/Hitchins that Obama never expected to get the nomination, it was a trial run to gain a national profile and set him up for a serious run in 2012.
I always thought Hitchens got credit for taking contrarian stands. He has been vapid as long as I can remember.
But I am not sure he is wrong that the credit crunch has not helped Obama in the polls yet. McCain got a bump in the polls when he picked Palin and white women gave her a chance. That bump began to disappear as soon as Palin actually spole in a non-scripted format, and basically among those same white women. But the Obama gains seem to have flattened precisely when one might think the credit crunch should have grown his lead. He has simply gotten back his pre-convention lead.
That does not mean that Hitchen's explanation is not vapid. People don't understand the credit issue, so it is not surprising they are not rushing to endorse one candidate over another based on it. Hitchen's is just repeating back conventional wisdon here because it supports the case he wants to be true.
"Break's over"
Hitchens is doing a favor for the good guys.
Lib, I also think that the country is nowhere near as conservative as Republicans seems to believe it is. Where Republicans have excelled is in finding or creating single issue voters, and targeting those voters effectively. What Obama has essentially made his political career on is attempting to break though to these single issue groups, and challenging conventional political wisdom that has built up over the decades.
This is why I also disagree that he didn't think he would win. I think that from the moment that he hit the national stage, he was preparing to win, and win in this environment. He wouldn't have built up the networks and state-level infrastructure that he did, even prior to Iowa if he didn't think that he had a legitimate shot. He did the homework, right down to the congressional district that no one else did, and he did it early. Obama didn't just accidentally happen along.
Even when some of us would like for him to do something different -- google back to his supporter feedback during the summer months of 2007 for an example -- Obama has proven over time that he has a blueprint in place that he's working from. And Hitchens' "advice" has no place in that blueprint.
Hitchens is right to an extent. Obama has no sense of going in for the kill, and it's a real problem. It would be one thing if he did it and didn't reap an electoral result--then we could go on about racism. But he hasn't attacked nearly enough, and if he's no Dukakis, he's very far from a Markos which is what he should be.
Hitchens, of course, over-values his own qualities: vitriol and taking no prisoners. But in this case those qualities are objectively necessary to victory, and Obama is not showing them sufficiently.
Where is the evidence that Obama has ever been anything but a typical Liberal Democrat? Where is the evidence of his bi-partisanship? Where is the evidence that he has transcended conventional wisdom on any issue? Where did he 'break through' any wedge issues?
That's a nice construct but it isn't backed up by the facts. He is the proto-typical Liberal Democrat and he has the voting record to prove it. He also has the record of switching positions on core issues--death penalty, gun control--to improve his chances for winning the presidency. Again, typical politician, nothing transcendent about it.
O lordy Jim... you really think the dems tell people things they don't want to hear?
Obama is going to end oil dependency in 10 years, create 5 million green jobs, fix social security, and lower taxes on the middle class.
Please. They are both telling people what they want to hear, they are just shooting for slightly different people.
At least try not to be blindly partisan; not saying you have to like Republicans, but seriously, the pity party is laughable.
Hitchens is right to an extent. Obama has no sense of going in for the kill, and it's a real problem.
This is fucking nonsense. Obama hammered McCain last week. Absolutely hammered him.
If you don't think Obama knows how to go in for the kill, you don't know much about the guy. Take some time and read up about how he won his State Senate seat in IL, and took Alice Palmer out of the running. The guy knows how to be ruthless.
Hitchens' write-up parrots a lot of that from the right for last week. They know how bad/flustered McCain was, and by comparison how steady Obama was. There are a bunch of these guys who've written very long columns, with lost of evidence on just how bad McCain was, and then a single sentence stating that "Obama wasn't much better". It's bullshit. He was leagues better. They're simply trying to avoid piling on.
Jake, if you think that's hammering, you have some very small nails. In any event, speaking to a crowd (however large) of the already-converted means very little. When Obama says that stuff in a TV ad, call me.
Toxic,
Who wins the reality contest between Dems and Repubs? Up until this recent financial crisis, "the fundamentals of our economy are strong". That's just the most recent example. Let's not even go into how the war has been going and how it was paintbrushed.
I'll grant that there's an element of g spot stroking by both parties but that's more of an indictment of us than them. Not a pity party, more an admission that the country by and large is too immature to face truths that are unpleasant. Denying this is denying reality.
Rich, he has an ad up already using McCain's words on deregulating the health care industry like banking, and characterizing a McCain presidency as something we can't risk.
What would you have him do? What would hammering look like in your view?
Where is the evidence that Obama has ever been anything but a typical Liberal Democrat? Where is the evidence of his bi-partisanship?
There are a good number of bills in the IL and US Senate where he's worked with Republicans. There's plenty of evidence there, you just have to be willing to look for it.
Where is the evidence that he has transcended conventional wisdom on any issue?
Like the decision to invade Iraq? I'd say he was way out in front on that cluster-fuck. That's a pretty big one for many people. Contrast it with McCain screaming "ON TO BAGHDAD!!!" on a carrier just weeks after 9/11. One of these guys has the right temperament to be POTUS, and it's not John McCain.
Hitchens has never been a good writer. He's just been acerbic and mean, which masked his muddled thinking.
As for this piece, he lost me when he asked if the reader could remember a single line from some Obama speeches. Since I could remember multiple lines from each speech he cited, his point was lost on me.
Sponsoring or signing a few bills with Republicans doesn't really make you bi-partisan, I doubt there is any legislator in the country that hasn't signed onto bills sponsored by the other party.
Obama votes with the Democrats over 90% of the time. His present votes also don't speak too well of him, either.
On topic please guys. The merits of Obama as a liberal or change-agent have been debate ad nauseum. Please don't thread-jack us back into six months ago.
The news portion of that essay was, Hitchens is swinging back to the left.
Okay. I think yes Obama is vapid, but not gutless. Obama, from a campaign perspective has a lot of things to finesse which don't lend themselves to a frontal "attack" type of stance. But, my opinion is they don't come any more vapid and content free than Barack Obama.
Hitchens made one observation that I have believed since the primaries and which I'm surprised doesn't get mentioned more frequently:
[W]hat I suspect in his case is that [Obama] had no idea of winning this time around. He was running in Iowa and New Hampshire to seed the ground for 2012, not 2008 ...
This is almost certainly true. Of course, once he started winning, happily, it was brass ring or bust.
What about when Obama was in the IL senate working on a bill requiring confessions to be video-taped? He broke through the objections of the police by pointing out where they would benefit from such tapes and arguments from civil rights groups that working with the other side would dilute the bill.
In the US Senate he worked with a republican (I forget, I think it was Coburn) on ethics reform and produced some of the furthest reaching ethics legislation since Watergate. He's done other such work on nuclear nonproliferation.
True bipartisanship isn't finding a "middle-ground" that makes no one happy or strategic votes to gain brownie points from the other side (see: Clinton, Lieberman). It's finding another person who cares about the issue you're dealing with to work with and get the policy right, and where there are objections, getting to the root of the problem and addressing it in a way that doesn't compromise your goals.
Go to the Andrew Sullivan section and read "Why Obama Matters". There's a link to a Hilzoy article, also, that looks at his record of not going for flash in his legislation, but working on smaller bills/amendments that don't catch attention, but go a long way toward good governance.
Ta, I'm not sure what's sadder here. One the one hand, the Hitchens column is bad. Really bad. I saw the title on Slate yesterday and rolled my eyes. I'm starting to buy into the conspiracy theory that the pundits/"journalists"/bloggers are keeping things even to keep sales/site hits up (present company excluded, obvs).
On the other hand, the fact that you seem shocked that Hitchens could binge on the election coverage nonsense, let it mix with his own usual bile and purge an even worse concoction is worthy of note too. I think the wine is finally thinking for him.
The coverage of Obama is never even. It's either he's too cool, in his burberry suits and shades, or he's that dork from 88 who lost the election to H.W. Too liberal for mainstream America (whatever that means) or he's tacking too far to the middle and losing his base. He needs to get angry, or he needs to avoid Angry Black Man Syndrome. I've given up on the coverage. I've found that I'm happier trying to figure out how the Broncos have managed to keep winning.
If Hitchens were a D&D character (class: Alcoholic, 20th level, or maybe a Bard if you want to get technical), he'd have an Intelligence of 15 and a Wisdom of 4. (Constitution: 6, but that's not relevant to this comment).
Here's why: Dukakis was up, IIRC, by 18% over Bush after the Dem convention in 1988. So Dukakis did, in fact, build up the huge lead that Hitchens faults Obama for not building. It's just that he lost it. "Being like Dukakis" means blowing a huge lead in the polls. Also, I can still remember Dukakis's "Good jobs, at good wages" line. So what?
Furthermore, to the extent that McCain has a consistent theme on this campaign, it's War! War! War! And guess who's been writing for 5 years in favor of an all-out, WWIII (or IV, depending on how you count the Cold War) against "Islamofascism"? Yes, our favorite Master Alcoholic, Mr. Hitchens. So his piece here sounds like, "I'm a total idiot! My arguments are vapid and moronic! Why can't you beat me in a debate?"
I don't think it's accurate to claim that Obama was running for 2012. Everything I've seen indicates that they felt the race hinged on Iowa. If they could win Iowa, they had a shot at the rest.
I don't think any pol worth their salt would've been planning that far ahead. It's nonsense. Nobody has that good a handle on what the landscape would have looked like four years out.
Look, if it wasn't going to be Obama this time around, it would have been Hillary. I don't think Hillary loses this election any more than Obama does.
You refer to the title of the piece as a cliche. It seems that no-one has noticed that title replaces an earlier one. The original one was: "The Dusky Dukakis." Apparently that was a little too incendiary, hmmm?
Libertarian, just because McCain has had his entire party either question his temperament or his competence at some point does not make him a bi-partisan change agent.
Sorry Ta-Nehisi, that's as far as I'll so with that. I missed out of the chance to respond earlier. Damn work and productivity expectations...
As for whether Obama is "vapid", he has come forward with much more substantial and substantive policy positions than John McCain has. He's explained how he's planning to pay for his proposals in much more detail than McCain, and without using magic numbers like "billions from evil earmarks". And he's gone on at length about the benefits of his policy positions.
Now, I know that you might disagree with Barack Obama on policy, but it's dishonest to claim that this he is "vapid". You don't like him, fine. But at least be intellectually honest about who he is. And I will try to do the same for McCain.
Y'know, as someone who has been heavily influenced by Hitchens' writing (i.e. "Letters to a Young Contrarian) I've been continually disappointed by his lack of quality analysis on this election. I mean, I'm dying for some incisive, dare-I-say Hitchens-esque coverage of this campaign to cut through the bullshit, but all he seems interested in doing is personally attacking candidates (although I say with some double-standard guilt that I thought this article on Huckabee was hilarious). I mean, I'm cool with criticisms of Obama, and I'm really trying to step outside my own bias and see things from the perspective of this writer I really admire, but I just don't get it. It's the Clinton thing all over again, and I end up separating Hitchens' writing into "the good stuff" and "the character attacks on politicians."
The parallels to Dukakis just don't seem there, either personally or in an historical perspective. Dukakis's message, from what I remember, was that he was the competence candidate and his Massachusetts Miracle. He had to run against the Reagan legacy. Obama isn't running as a boring technocrat like Dukakis and had the advantage of running against the Bush legacy.
I agree with Deborah that McCain was far and away, the best Republican to put up against Obama. I know those on some of the rabid lefty blogs think he was the weakest, but that might have been them just being hacks. I am not so sure the country is center left at this point, though that is hard to tell because people in polls tend to contradict themselves.
Class: Aristocrat/Contrarian (Alcoholic is a feat, not a class), Lvl 5/10 (to be generous), INT: 17+ (I quite like some of his writing, actually), Align: CN. [Ah. My daily nerdity has been achieved. Early, too.]
More seriously (but in the same vein): Hitchens wouldn't recognize Charisma if it pissed in his whiskey. That's the god damned difference between Obama and Dukakis.
Also: The guy had to literally torture himself to recognize that it is a bad thing. I mean, yeesh.
Christopher Hitchens once said women aren't funny
No, he wrote a whole essay about it. In elegant prose. Never mind Gracie Allen, Lucille Ball, Mary Tyler Moore, Goldie Hawn, Whoopi Goldberg, Cameron Diaz, Tina Fey, yada yada yada.
What goes on in his head is clearly more important to him than, you know, the real world.
I was going to say Hitchens was a hack but I was already beaten to it. He's the commentariat's version of Gwar, but not awesome.
Nothing is as awesome as Gwar. This is an unfounded smear on Gwar's good name.
Yeah, well I roll old school. No feats.
Also, we didn't discuss race. I'd say he's a Half-Sour.
I would just like to point out that it is September and we haven't even had the first debate yet. To say the McCain campaign should have been ended is stupid on its face. Obama from the beginning has been focused on winning the election, doing the ground work, softening the body in boxing terms. McCain from the beginning has understood that he had to stay close in the polls or risk being completely abandoned by his own base, and so he has run an increasingly hysterical and deranged campaign designed to keep attention for a day or two at a time.
You can't win an election in September.
Dannity,
As far as I know McCain has bucked his party many, many more times than Obama.
From a content perspective, I don't see how saying you're going to pay for your programs by "taxing the rich" is anything but vapid, certainly its on par with paying for everything based on "eliminating earmarsk". I actually think "tax the rich" relies on a lot more magical thinking than "eliminate earmarks" does...I also don't believe that Obama is going to be able to follow through on his tax cuts for 95% of Americans, of which at least 30% already barely pay any taxes.
When I listen to Obama he reminds me of one of my old bosses who was a genius at winning business...but once won, many of his out of the box ideas turned out to cost a lot more than we said they would, or they were simply unworkable outside a conference room. Everything he says sounds good, but when you get down to how's he going to do it, or how he is going to pay for it, everything evaporates.
I actually "like" a lot of things about Obama, there is a lot to admire there, I just don't think he is ready to be president and I don't agree that the top priority for the country is me paying for more "ladders" for the poor. Just like I "like" a lot of things about John McCain, but not enough to vote for him.
Libertarian writes: "But, my opinion is they don't come any more vapid and content free than Barack Obama."
I think a solid rule for life would be to find out what Libertarian's take on an issue is and then to assume that the opposite is true.
"I actually "like" a lot of things about Obama, there is a lot to admire there, I just don't think he is ready to be president and I don't agree that the top priority for the country is me paying for more "ladders" for the poor."
Yeah, all you care about is lower taxes. That's why you voted for Bush twice.
Good job, chuckles.
Deleted for that last part. Come on man.
I’m not convinced that the comparison to Dukakis was the central thesis of the “essay”. I think he wanted to string together “vapid, hesitant, and gutless” and apply them to Obama. Dukakis was as far back as his knowledge of history (however rudimentary) would take him. The rest is just fluff- he can’t just post “Obama is V, H, and G.” so he needed some filler. While we’re at it, “let’s break this word down a minute”- Vapid: insipid, lifeless, uninspiring. Not even close. Hesitant: this is the only charge Obama leaves himself open to, by virtue of his habit of thinking about what he is going to say before he says it. If you like pat answers with no forethought involved, McCain’s your man. Gutless: the mere fact that he is running at all should put this to rest, but I assume he is faulting Obama for not jumping all over the bailout as a political football. This tracks right back to the charge of hesitancy, and again: Obama thinks before he speaks.
I think there are a couple reasons for people not instantly going for Obama due to this.
One is the actions of congressional democrats. Barney Frank overturning the FHA's decision to end the use for bridge loans for down payments is a good example. Obama doesn't have any record of disagreeing with his party on anything.
Second, in many parts of the country democrats work hard to prevent the kind of development that used to provide good blue collar jobs. Here in Alaska they oppose every mine, logging project, new drilling project. The men and women who used to have these jobs don't want to sell t-shirts to tourists. They aren't going to instantly vote democrat especially if the democrats don't have clear answers.
I think also that independents rightly discern that both parties helped make the current mess.If you don't think the democrats were involved in creating this mess read the Village Voice article on Andrew Cuomo.
The fact that you aren't "dominating" in a Country that thinks Sarah Palin is a "breath of fresh air" doesn't speak poorly of him, it speaks poorly of the country.
I too used to like Hitchens. He's a literary snob, which I appreciate. But he's become cartoonishly contrarian. If you were talking to Christopher Hitchens, and you told him about your faith in the law of gravity, he would either tell you that a) gravity is a silly myth, or, b) gravity killed his grandmother.
Here's what I think is happening:
1. Let's assume Hitchens hangs out with highly educated folks (overwhelmingly Obama supporters.)
2. Hitchens is a contrarian.
Therefore, Hitchens must argue against Obama.
If Hitchens lived in Wasilla, Alaska, he would be going door to door for Obama by now.
His writing sounds like the way the McCain campaign, and the Clinton campaign before it, became frustrated with columnists writing more positive words about Obama than their candidate. What they can't admit, I suppose, is that he may just be objectively a better candidate, and be attracting kind words on that basis. Nope. can't be that. He must have a "tank" somewhere for naive journalists to fall into.
i hate to agree with hitchens because i think his public performance over the last 7 or 8 years has been despicable, and i wouldn't doubt that he's gained financially in many ways for performing his little leopard changing his spots act.
but i do agree that obama has been too hesitant and he should be exploiting mccain's weaknesses more. he should have buried mccain last week, and though he gained, no doubt, he still has not gained the advantage that is there for him to take.
what more could he do?
for one thing, stop running as a defensive politician. his defensive posture may leave him vulnerable to a last-second bit of manipulation and it is guaranteed to keep the race close. it is the way that defensive entities work through any competition.
hunker down, take few risks, deal with a close competition and hope you prevail ultimately.
he should stop calling mccain an honorable man. calling him an honorable man only gives mccain's attacks weight and authority. pretty simple stuff.
he should start calling mccain a "republican". he pointedly avoids calling mccain a republican, instead he runs against mccain and "washington". this seems to be a big tactical mistake, as i believe that voters, even independants and obamacons would not penalize him for using that partisan weapon. they've watched the last 7 years and know full well that republicans are responsible for the problems. framing the race as being against republicans will also help down-ticket dems running for office.
he can also start to mention things like the keating 5 and mccain's age. both of those issues are very powerful weapons and if used correctly could tap into real concerns that people have about mccain. if mccain can argue that he is too young and inexperienced to be president, why is it not appropriate for obama to discuss the fact that mccain is too old and doddering to serve as president?
why isn't there a commercial quoting thad cochran, the republican senator who said that he essentially feared having john mccain serve as president because of his temperament? again, this is a legitimate issue that obama has not touched on.
if i played obama's campaign mangager, every public statement would be very simple. it would repeat, over and over again: phil gramm, deregulation, carly fiorina's golden parachute, bad temper, phil gramm, whiners, mental recession, keating five....
i'd just keep repeating that stuff over and over again and never be afraid to deal with any issue from mccain's past.
Hitchens is in love with himself. The devil's advocacy is his way of garnering attention. If you want amusement, go and watch Hitchens volunteer to be waterboarded for Vanity Fair. Then read his article dismissing waterboarding as "foreplay" compared to more traditional forms of torture.
I don't get why if you disagree with someone on one thing, you have to try to destroy their character and/or mischaracterize the rest of their views.
Hitchens in no uncertain terms said that waterboarding was torture and he admits that it was done to him under the most controlled and gentle circumstances possible.
It is also true that, waterboard, which is torture, when compared to something like having your fingernails torn off, is 'foreplay'....
Hitchens' talent as a writer doesn't equal the ability to provide relevant commentary. Also, the respect of other writers for his skills doesn't equal widespread influence for his ideas. Bottomline: Hitchens is talking to himself. Feel better, T?
Hitchens fills me with disgust and pity. Here is the "next George Orwell" pimping himself to his new right-wing buddies. He has to over-compensate for his atheism to please the new crowd. Yuck!
Re: I also think that the country is overall a lot more conservative than Democrats believe it is, which is why they're always shocked when they don't win the presidential election. I don't see a
The evidence suggests otherwise. In poll after poll Americans show themselves as being fairly and solidly centrist with a slight lean to the right on some issues and a slight lean to the left on others. The GOP has become adept at exploiting those slight rightward leans (see: gay marriage issue etc.) but the chickens have started to come home to roost. If Americans were not turned off by the result of 100% GOP control of government how else to explain the fact of the 2006 election, and the near certainty that this year will yield even larger Dem gains in Congress and in state offices. Electoral defeats for the Right is anything but evidence for a rightwing America.
Re: My opinion is that Democrats are by and large in denial mode about the fact that a lot of people have serious reservations about Obama and his experience.
Neither Abraham Lincoln nor FDR has significantly more experuence than Obama-- Lincoln in fact had a lot less. Experience isn't what matters-- preparedness is. Both Jimmy Carter and George W Bush had "experience". Both were flubs as presidents.
Libertarian makes more excuses for his heroes: "It is also true that, waterboard, which is torture, when compared to something like having your fingernails torn off, is 'foreplay'...."
It is also true that detainees have been beaten to death by US personnel, which when compared to anything else is 'endplay.'
Not that any of it bothers you in the least.
What does that have to do with what Hitchens wrote? Oh nothing, its a straw man argument.
Acknowledging that waterboarding is not the same as having your fingernails torn out or being beaten to death has NOTHING to do with approval or disapproval of "harsh interrogation" tactics, but you are too much of a partisan to understand that.
You see someone contradict your view: Hitchens thinks waterboarding is no big deal. When your view is pointed out as completely incorrect: Hitchens said no such thing...you jump all the way to saying that I'm not bothered by detainees being murdered by U.S. troops and that I'm making excuses for my "heroes".
Correcting eroneous statements made about Hitchens doesn't make him my hero.
But, for the record, stooge, I was against the Iraq War from the beginning, I was also against the first Iraq War, I don't support the legalization of torture, don't support the military tribunals, don't support keeping people in prison for years without charging them.
But, none of that makes waterboarding the equivalent of being beaten to death or having your fingernails pulled out. It is one of the milder forms of torture, as are all the torture techniques the U.S. now "legally" uses...it doesn't mean they are NOT TORTURE, they are.
Unfortunately, I suspect any of these logical distinctions are over your head.