US News
Feb 20, 2008, 8:17 GMT
Obama, McCain declared winners in primaries (2nd Roundup)
And Also
Barack Obama - View Barack Obama Pictures - Barack Obama News
|
|
|
|
|
Hillary Clinton - View Hillary Clinton Pictures - Hillary Clinton News
|
|
|
|
|
Similar articles
- ANALYSIS: On Obama's election anniversary, Republicans claim victory
- Republican victories in first election test for Obama (Roundup)
- Republican victories in first election test for Obama (3rd Lead)
- Republican victories in first election test for Obama (2nd Lead)
- Republicans take Virginia in first election test for Obama (1st Lead)
Latest Headlines in US
- 1. Social-climbers summoned over White House security breach
- 2. Suspect in quadruple police execution evades capture (1st Lead)
- 3. Four police officers slain in coffee shop "execution"
- 4. Struggles at home leave Obama hamstrung at Copenhagen (Feature)
- 5. Four US police officers shot dead near air force base (1st Lead)
Via BuzzFeed
Older Talkback
Quoting Senator Oabam:
'We cannot wait. And one year ago, one year ago when I made the decision to run, it was based on the belief that the size of our challenges had outstripped the capacity of a broken and divided politics to solve.
And I was certain that the American people were hungry for something new, that they were tired of a politics that tears each other down. They wanted a politics that would lift the country up, that they had grown weary of a politics that was based on spin and P.R. They wanted a politics that was based on honesty and truthfulness and straight talk to the American people.
I was convinced, most of all, that change in America does not happen from the top down. It happens from the bottom up.'
How many of us have made this same complaint about what goes on in Washington DC? Nearly all of us. How many of us want the status quo? Almost none of us.
Here is simply getting his prospects to agree with him by saying things that they all believe and have moaned and groaned about. A good salesman is always careful to keep his prospects thinking, 'Yes.'
hey guy, i mentioned once before how i can at least occasionally appreciate what you post, and i will mention it again. i think that you have offered an accurate, if lengthy appraisal of the political rhetoric of the leading candidates. I can relate to you because i sense that you are a realist, and not kindred spirit to the ilks of idiot spfool and 'give me a break', who rants incoherently comparing Obama to Cambodian Pol Pot. 'gmab' is correct with his comparison in only one aspect: both Obama and Pol Pot are true 'made in America' products. By the way I recently completed a five nation SE Asia tour that included observing Kymer Rouge bullet holes in the sacred temple ruins of Ankor Wat, and seeing countless persons with missing limbs because of American made land mines, etc. Noharness, don't let your crazed detractors diminish your capacity for accurate critiques, and thanks for being one of the few coherent thinkers who post on this site.
'elections are ALWAYS decided by us fans. '
Fine, how well is that working? What you are saying is the most glitzy presentation wins. Gee, would we have had a Lincoln that way? He was ugly and had a screechy voice. How about a FDR? He was in a wheel chair for heavens sake. Nine times out of 10 we could weather it, Noharness. I fear though that we are facing a specific set of challenges (The war against islamist terrorists, the ponderous national debt, our economic well being tied closely to our energy dependence, uncountable teachers unions, on and on...) that Obama is uniquely unsuited to handle. Indeed, thus far he hasn't demonstrated that he can handle much of anything.
'And your point is?'
(Ice cream headache again.)
'The speech is substantive precisely because it reveals these things that you do not like.'
Well, no. Substantive would be illuminating how he is going to pay for these fuzzy dreams of perfection and how he is going to silence the lobbyists without stifling freedom of speech and how we are going to guarantee that Iraq won't turn in to a bloody proxy war between Iran and Saudi Arabia that will cause a world wide depression and enable the terrorists that attacked us to claim, with some justification that they defeated both superpowers.
'You just now in the paragraph above, belittled his oratorical skill by declaring devoid of content and you belittled his voters'
Wrong on the first part, in fact I think he is an excellent orator precisely BECAUSE he can package ambiguous, glitzy slogans in a way that has people mesmerized. In other words, I think he is an excellent orator because he is an excellent salesman. Note, noharness, this is not an 'attack' this is my assessment. Whether it is exactly correct or not is irrelevant to coming up with a strategy to address it.
' Sure, it's 'Big Rock CAndy Mountain' all over again'
Heh, does that mean you think folks are in for a disappointment?
'This list of things you are complaining about are what gives his speech substance.'
Substance: 'practical importance'...'meaning'... What comes to mind when I read it is the idea of 'literary verisimilitude', or even 'truthyness'. The reason that I have called it 'substanceless' is that the way it is being packaged he is selling the ideal and not the idea. (Think 'Camelot' versus 'the bay of pigs'.) To be excruciatingly precise I understand and accept your point, where I believe I part company with you is the objective is not to put forth a compelling argument but to sell the 'dream', the 'mythic narrative'. I think that his followers are not so much attracted to the policies but to the 'mythic narrative' that he sells. That is the super-objective of his speeches and that might be the best way of breaking his candidacy. (Make a mental note of that.)
Yes, there are vagaries of policy wrapped in the 'All that you need to do in order to have 'hope' is to vote for this guy' message... (Hope for what? Change to what?) Well sorry, that sounds a lot like 'all you need to do in order to get free of all the evil is to become familiar with the writings of L Ron Hubbard...' Again, I get your point and you are correct: 'substanceless' is imprecise.
'He is, in other words handing out ammunition to be used against him.'
Yes. You are correct. He is also keeping his cards close to his vest.
'There is no need to belittle the man or his voters.'
Did you happen to just arrive here? :-D Some of his voters are sincerely nuts. Helping them to look foolish is a guilty pleasure. Taking the messiah down a peg might prove to be beneficial as well. Further, there are GENUINE items of concern about his past history that should be brought out in to the open.
'There IS great need to refute his arguments and demonstrate the folly of his positions.'
I agree. However this goes back to the 'that you can't argue with crazy people' part of the presentation.
'He really does mean to do what he says.'
Indeed.
'This man is as sincere as they come.'
In terms of effect perhaps. He is pushing a narrative that is tailored to dovetail with the needs and prejudices of a segment of the population, one that relies on a sense of grievance and frustration and seeks to provide scapegoats and remedies which can not nor should not be the business of government. Pandering to a misplaced and universal sense of grievance that comes with the human condition is not viable public policy. It also appeals to the inherently narcissistic and immature. (surprise) It is also the inverse of 'ask not what your country can do for you'...
'Sure, but it will not help your cause one iota. All that ever does is anger your opponents and stiffen his neck.'
It also serves to demonstrate the intellectual bankruptcy and the incredible self serving rationalizations that these people employ in order to maintain their 'identity'. When you can systematically show the leaps in logic, the selfishness that they call altruism, the bigotry they love to regard as open mindedness, the sliding scale of indignation, the conformity that they regard as rebellion, the cowardice on many levels...
I have to believe that there are some people out there who see that drawn out and demonstrated and feel some measure of disgust.
'Such tactics are only useful in certain very special circumstances when you know you can cause your opponent to lose his/her temper and make a silly mistake.'
That is commonplace. The fact that you would allow for that
'Believe me, they WILL bunch up.'
Just like cattle. Breaking the argument is not the same as physical assault, obviously. Tactically, I an not so sure that bunching up a group of laughingstocks isn't a bad idea. Look what it did for Ron Paul.
'but will John McCain actually step up to the bat and DEFEND LIBERTY at home?'
It will be as it always has been in a republic, you are given a choice between 2 viable candidates. Who do you think will do a better job or at least not a whole lot of damage until the next election cycle?
' John McCain is unlikely to have any such checks and balances on domestic matters.'
He is a fiscal conservative who has consistently shrunk the size of government and reduces spending. Zero earmarks in his career. I would have run like hell from him had that not been the case. That 10 trillion dollar debt is a threat to the existence of the USA. He is the best hope for dealing with it at this point.
'Liberty really is in a dangerous situation here.'
It probably sounds like an hysterical overreaction to some but I agree with that statement.
'Then we have nothing to lose by doing the job properly, do we?'
We have a lot to lose by losing.
noharness is congratulating noharness. these two are one and the same.
'noharness is congratulating noharness. these two are one and the same.'
So would It be stiffening this idiots neck to call him an idiot?
nope, it wouldn't hurt a bit because you can't spell. You used the plural of idiot, not the possessive form. You're the idiot. Don't forget your tokes before watching the moon. Make sure it doesn't float away, OK?
I want to assure resident ahole that I and Noharness are not one in the same. Go bend over and get reamed by your ahole butt buddies if you need more persuading
'I want to assure resident ahole that I and Noharness are not one in the same. Go bend over and get reamed by your ahole butt buddies if you need more persuading'
That is no way to talk about your good buddy SPfool.
says htis about himself on a far, far rightwing neocon news site.
'55 years old. college educated. middle-class background. fully employed all of my adult life. live in a small town. have traditional conservative values. admired barry goldwater. have served on my local church committees, local school board, zoning appeals board. long-time registered voter. open-minded, independent thinker.'
Definitely not a thinker at all, let alone an independent one. Just another small minded backwoods, uneducated bumkin, no wonder he admires noharness. They are so close they could be bum-chums.
oh, my goodness. Truconserv truly doesn't match his assesment of himself if he uses language like that. How un-church like. Definitely not a mature 55. But as a true conservative republican, he is well aquainted with the rear quarters. Done any toe tapping in men's washroom lately, tru, baby?
Why does he have bluish-gray lips?
Re:'Noharness, don't let your crazed detractors diminish your capacity for accurate critiques, and thanks for being one of the few coherent thinkers who post on this site.'
You are quite welcome and I will do my best. Thank you very much.
RE:'So would It be stiffening this idiots neck to call him an idiot?'
Actually, you only stiffen another part of this person's anatomy by calling him or her names. It is never a good idea to indulge a sado-masochist in their vices. This person's real goal is to disrupt serious discourse and whoever or whatever it is, should be persistently ignored.
RE:'Fine, how well is that working? What you are saying is the most glitzy presentation wins. Gee, would we have had a Lincoln that way? He was ugly and had a screechy voice. How about a FDR? He was in a wheel chair for heavens sake. Nine times out of 10 we could weather it, Noharness. I fear though that we are facing a specific set of challenges (The war against islamist terrorists, the ponderous national debt, our economic well being tied closely to our energy dependence, uncountable teachers unions, on and on...) that Obama is uniquely unsuited to handle. Indeed, thus far he hasn't demonstrated that he can handle much of anything.'
Okay, so you can make a real case against him, right? It is necessary then to make really good case and not simply dismiss him out of hand. If waving your hand and dismissing silly ideas worked, the Soviet Union would have died aborning.
The majority of people are susceptible to good salesmanship, that is all there is to it. Hell, I've fallen for it more times than I want to count and I work hard at seeing what I'm looking at while ignoring the hype. Barack Obama could sell freshly fallen snow in Alaska to Alaskans. He's that good.
RE:'Well, no. Substantive would be illuminating how he is going to pay for these fuzzy dreams of perfection and how he is going to silence the lobbyists without stifling freedom of speech and how we are going to guarantee that Iraq won't turn in to a bloody proxy war between Iran and Saudi Arabia that will cause a world wide depression and enable the terrorists that attacked us to claim, with some justification that they defeated both superpowers.'
These are all valid criticisms of the SUBSTANCE in his speech. This is one of the things I have been trying to get you to see. The quality of the substance is miserable, true enough, but the substance is there. What must be overcome, and overcome very carefully, is that magnificent salesmanship of his. The guy does not just have talent, he has studied this stuff. He has mastered it. If Senator McCain wants to beat Senator Obama during the general election, it will be necessary for him and his staff to show that accepting the substances of Obama's speeches would be little more than substance abuse. Having said that, I don't think that a direct assault on him, or his speaking ability, or his character will serve that end.
What Senator McCain must do to win this is to first and foremost sell his own ideas. Every good salesman will tell you that bashing the other guy's product is a hazardous technique. Obama is a better salesman that McCain. John McCain will have to use his head for something other than a battering ram to defeat this kid.
Re:'Wrong on the first part, in fact I think he is an excellent orator precisely BECAUSE he can package ambiguous, glitzy slogans in a way that has people mesmerized. In other words, I think he is an excellent orator because he is an excellent salesman. Note, noharness, this is not an 'attack' this is my assessment. Whether it is exactly correct or not is irrelevant to coming up with a strategy to address it.'
Fair enough. I agree that he is peddling the same old Marxist oogunga that has been around for far too long and has cost who knows how many lives. It has failed everywhere tried and failed miserably. This is something that should be pointed out, but not necessarily by Senator McCain. He should let grumpy old farts like us do that job.
RE:'Heh, does that mean you think folks are in for a disappointment?'
Absolutely. John McCain should be playing that song once in a while before he makes a speech. When he speaks, then he should focus in on reality as sharply as he can and ignore Barack Obama as much as he possibly can. Were I John McCain, I would act as though the guy did not exist.
Barack Obama has been laying the groundwork for his Houston Speech for months. His timing for delivering the larger part of his message was absolutely perfect. Senator McCain must now start laying the groundwork for his own breakthrough oratory. He needs to focus on selling his own stuff for right now, not answering his critics or attacking Obama. That strategy will fail.
RE:'....The reason that I have called it 'substanceless' is that the way it is being packaged he is selling the ideal and not the idea...'
BINGO! But this ephemeral schtuff has a very real effect, doesn't it? What you have to chew on here is the difference between the dream and the reality and you have to do that in detail. You cannot simply dismiss it as being silly. That will not overcome Obama's masterful delivery.
Re:'(Think 'Camelot' versus 'the bay of pigs'.) To be excruciatingly precise I understand and accept your point, where I believe I part company with you is the objective is not to put forth a compelling argument but to sell the 'dream', the 'mythic narrative'. I think that his followers are not so much attracted to the policies but to the 'mythic narrative' that he sells. That is the super-objective of his speeches and that might be the best way of breaking his candidacy. (Make a mental note of that.)'
I will not venture an opinion on this. You may well be right. I do know that Senator McCain should be tightly focused on his own message right now, because no one really knows what that might be. He has yet to make a single coherent presentation of his intentions.
RE:'Yes, there are vagaries of policy wrapped in the 'All that you need to do in order to have 'hope' is to vote for this guy' message... (Hope for what? Change to what?) Well sorry, that sounds a lot like 'all you need to do in order to get free of all the evil is to become familiar with the writings of L Ron Hubbard...''
Or Joseph Stalin, or Pol Pot, or Hugo Chavez, or Kim Jong-il, the list is fairly long, but you have to remember that every American President needs this aura of leadership about them or they cannot maintain the support they need to get things done. Contrast Barry Goldwater with Ronald Reagan for an example.
RE:'Again, I get your point and you are correct: 'substanceless' is imprecise.'
Good, because whatever tactics you choose, you should bear this in mind while making the choice.
The truly amusing thing about all this is that The Clintons cannot defend themselves from Senator Obama's onslaught because they peddle a line of oogunga that is very little different from the Senator's, but neither of them are in his class as salesmen. They are doomed to lose this fight and I see that as a very good thing.
I would very much prefer to see the White House in Republican hands, but whither John McCain? Is he a Gooper or is he a RINO? Will he insist on getting something in return from our celebrated leftists when he 'reaches across the aisle' or will he give away the store? If the latter is true, I had rather see a Democrat take the White House and gamble on the American people electing a Gooper majority in the Legislature.
RE:'Did you happen to just arrive here? :-D Some of his voters are sincerely nuts.'
Yes, I have noticed and I often think that the Clintonistas are actually worse off Obama-ramas.
RE:'Helping them to look foolish is a guilty pleasure. Taking the messiah down a peg might prove to be beneficial as well. Further, there are GENUINE items of concern about his past history that should be brought out in to the open.'
Far be it from me to admonish others for enjoying their minor vices. I have few of my own.
RE:'I agree. However this goes back to the 'that you can't argue with crazy people' part of the presentation.'
Don't waste time bashing the other guy's brand.
In terms of effect perhaps. He is pushing a narrative that is tailored to dovetail with the needs and prejudices of a segment of the population, one that relies on a sense of grievance and frustration and seeks to provide scapegoats and remedies which can not nor should not be the business of government. Pandering to a misplaced and universal sense of grievance that comes with the human condition is not viable public policy. It also appeals to the inherently narcissistic and immature. (surprise) It is also the inverse of 'ask not what your country can do for you'...
Re'It also serves to demonstrate the intellectual bankruptcy and the incredible self serving rationalizations that these people employ in order to maintain their 'identity'. When you can systematically show the leaps in logic, the selfishness that they call altruism, the bigotry they love to regard as open mindedness, the sliding scale of indignation, the conformity that they regard as rebellion, the cowardice on many levels...
I have to believe that there are some people out there who see that drawn out and demonstrated and feel some measure of disgust.'
Don't be overwhelmed by the disgust. Maintain control and attack the faulty ideas, not the people espousing them.
Re'It will be as it always has been in a republic, you are given a choice between 2 viable candidates. Who do you think will do a better job or at least not a whole lot of damage until the next election cycle?'
That is the very question I am still trying to answer.
RE:'It probably sounds like an hysterical overreaction to some but I agree with that statement.'
Then neither of us should be surprised, should we? The price of Liberty is constant vigilance. I forgot who said that, but he or she was right.
RE:'We have a lot to lose by losing.'
Oh, you better betcha!
keep in mind that sp4 is retarded like his buddy bush is.
2 peas in a pod
...that does not make either of us wrong.
Yep, dumb ol Bush...he just keeps wining, year after year...
What is he dumb at? Politics? I don't think so....
Did you read the article in Rolliing Stone how the dems have sold their party out?
By all means, get back to us on that.
Good stuff Noharness, Ill revisit it this evening.
“Okay, so you can make a real case against him, right? “
Of course.
“It is necessary then to make really good case and not simply dismiss him out of hand.”
It is going to be necessary to make a real good case against him (his ideas) and For McCain. That goes without saying.
“The majority of people are susceptible to good salesmanship,”
McCain is never going to be able to out salesmanship this guy. That is just the fact and it would be stupid to take him head on and try to out “sell” him. That is a hard realization that doesn't have anything to do with the respective quality of each mans position or his character.
“He's that good.”
Unfortunately.
“The quality of the substance is miserable, true enough, but the substance is there.”
Again, I get your point. Yes, regarding his more recent speeches there is enough to be put to use against him. Here to fore we have been inundated with the (substanceless) “beyond partisanship” hype from his campaign but as you point out he has very partisan positions. Showing the gulf between the 'super-message' and the facts will be a part of showing that the messiah isn’t genuine.
What I have been trying to articulate here is it isn’t going to be enough to sell Mac and his “ideas” and make Baracks look like the standard, generic FAR left agenda that they are. Obama taps in to something that is greater then the sum of his disastrous positions. He fulfills a need that is not necessarily interconnected with the policies he is advocating. I 'Lonesome No More!' out of Vonnegut's 'Slapstick' springs to mind
“What Senator McCain must do to win this is to first and foremost sell his own ideas.”
You are correct in that he needs to get his ideas out better and hone his message. But lets face it; if the McCain campaign simply tries to “out salesman” him they are going to get their asses kicked.
“Every good salesman will tell you that bashing the other guy's product is a hazardous technique.”
And if the other guys product is genuinely hazardous?
“Obama is a better salesman that McCain.”
Indeed, but the product stinks. What you have said is that Mac needs to sell his ideas better. Agreed. I think he needs to focus. I also think that it is vital to show the gulf between the glitz and the nuts and bolts of what Obama is selling. “Hazardous” or not it is going to have to be done eventually.
“It has failed everywhere tried and failed miserably.”
Why the hell can’t people get their heads around that? What is so romantic about frustration?
“This is something that should be pointed out, but not necessarily by Senator McCain.”
Yes. (Timing is the thing here.) I see what you are saying but also this is something that he is actually quite good at that. (He enjoys it I suspect)
In a visceral way, Obamas “authenticity” is going to need to be challenged, as is the authenticity of the “mythic narrative” that his campaign is peddling. It is one thing to be able to kick the legs out of this thing with but another to go for the head at the same time. I suspect that simply selling a better idea will not be enough to make things decisive when you are competing with people who are being driven by an appeal to their emotional needs instead of an examination of competing proposals.
“Senator McCain must now start laying the groundwork for his own breakthrough oratory.”
His set of problems are different at the moment from Obamas. His breakthrough oratory will come during the convention. And he will need several more throughout the campaign.
“He needs to focus on selling his own stuff for right now,”
Yes.
“not answering his critics”
Some things you have to answer or they take on a life of their own. One of McCain’s dilemmas is that the press absolutely adores Obama. Funny, Hillary can’t seem to get arrested these days.
“or attacking Obama.”
There will come a time for that. Too much now and people will get sick of it.
“You cannot simply dismiss it as being silly.”
I do not. Not at all. Alarming is the word.
“He has yet to make a single coherent presentation of his intentions.”
He needs to focus. He needs to have it all ready before the primaries end. Remember though, the set of challenges now are going to be somewhat different after the conventions.
“American President needs this aura of leadership about them or they cannot maintain the support they need to get things done.”
How could any of us have been allowed to forget that these past few years? Part of the aura of leadership is legitimacy. No?
“Is he a Gooper or is he a RINO? “
Well… You are talking to someone who is horrified at the deficits, the growth of government, the mismanagement of the wars, the backsliding in standards for citizenship and education, he pathetic joke that is our southern border, etc… All with the blessings of the goopers. Honestly, If I could find a democrat like Harry Truman instead of Harry Reid left you might call me a “Rino. “
“If the latter is true, I had rather see a Democrat take the White House and gamble on the American people electing a Gooper majority in the Legislature.”
A Gop legislature is not going to happen In a system that is so dedicated to keeping in the incumbents. Mark my words, the damage that Obama could do at this juncture is horrific.
“Don't waste time bashing the other guy's brand.”
It is going to need to be addressed. There is an element of 'the next big thing' in peoples decision making going on here. Pointing out when people are making decisions that are this important to be a part of a fad isn't necessarily underestimating the power of the fad. It might just be giving them a shortcut to get buyers remorse:
bostonherald.com/news/opinion/columnists/view.bg?articleid=1074977
Let's just hope the buyer's remorse does not set in until AFTER the Democratic primary's are over. As risky as all this is, we have a chance here to be shut of two birds with one stone. This assumes that Senator McCain can defeat Senator Obama in the general election, which I can see that you realize is a tall order.
The thing that worries more about John McCain than his lack of salesmanship, is that he may not have ideas that far from Senator Obama's on a number of key issues. In the end, it will be the contrast between ideas, how one set of ideas kills the American spirit and how the other set sustains it, that will make the difference.
'Let's just hope the buyer's remorse does not set in until AFTER the Democratic primary's are over.'
Either way, long drawn out primary, super-deligate mischief or a GENUINE examination of this guy in the general election he cannot maintain this hysteria forever.
'As risky as all this is, we have a chance here to be shut of two birds with one stone.'
I would rather keep Hillary around as a cautionary tale. A known dragon is better then an unknown.
'which I can see that you realize is a tall order.'
It is a very tall order. We have a good man with a sterling character who is not an inherently strong candidate. That is being pitted against a human Rorschach test where everyone is being encouraged to see what they want to see. Yes, you are very correct that his ideas need to be vigorously challenged and hopefully that will be what does it. But this guy appeals to something other then ideas. He also, (note not exclusively by any means) appeals to something a whole lot different from 'substance' which I am not sure will be shaken by just running policy statements and counterarguments and appealing to the super-ego and not the id. We shall see.
'his lack of salesmanship'
It is a shame when you think about it. It goes back to the fact that we could not have had a Lincoln or even a Washington in this day and age. The way we are headed I fear that we will be looking at a president Paris Hilton in a couple of election cycles.
'is that he may not have ideas that far from Senator Obama's on a number of key issues.'
In terms of something like immigration reform, a key issue, it will be a matter of degrees. If you watched the debate last night you will notice that Obama basically said it would be a free for all as usual. I do not think McCains policy is strong enough but it is something as opposed to nothing. On energy, I haven't read either plan yet.
'In the end, it will be the contrast between ideas'
I hope so.
Your Talkback on this Story