Obama says no more Mr. Debate Nice Guy
Obama’s post-first-debate assessment was that he was just too darn nice. So in their pep talks for the second debate, his spokespeople offer us a different prospect: the Obama team promises more aggressive president in second debate.”
I wonder what form this will take. Will he jab his finger at Romney? Give him a cold hard stare? Bare his teeth and guffaw like a stoned lunatic, a la VP Biden?
Perhaps he’ll give him the finger, or brush the Romney dirt off his shoulder; the creative possibilities are almost endless.
Or he could finally attempt to muster some arguments to justify and explain the abysmal failure of his 4-year presidency. His 2012 candidacy has so far been based almost entirely on attacking Romney and Ryan, and the attack has been mainly ad hominem. The fact that so many people still consider Obama a nice guy remains a deep puzzlement to me.
An adolescent knows how to appeal to adolescents…let’s hope the adolescents stay home in November.
I think Romney will know how to handle any Obama aggressiveness in this debate. Plus, I doubt Obama knows how to be aggressive in a classy, adult way.
The fact that so many people still consider Obama a nice guy remains a deep puzzlement to me.
It’s because ∅bama doesn’t scream and shout. He says uncivil things in a very subdued, undramatic manner. ∅bama also gains by comparison with Al Sharpton and Jessee Jackson, who could make a reading grocery list sound like Armageddon.
@neo Or he could finally attempt to muster some arguments to justify and explain the abysmal failure of his 4-year presidency
…ah, but he has only the one explanation. Basically, that amounts to excoriating his predecessor for the “unusual burdens” he inherited.
You know full well that had Obama been precognizant of the September 2008 economic fall, he wouldn’t have entered the race in 2007.
He only attempts what is easy and a foregone conclusion; he is truly an exemplar of the “best” of affirmative action.
Just in case:
Yes, the scary quotes were intentional and ironic.
And …No. I wasn’t being complimentary.
Obama seems to think if he acts serious that somehow makes him look smart. My guess is we’ll see him looking very serious when Romney attacks his record or proposes reforms.
Maybe Obama will simply instruct Candy Crowley to interrupt Romney every time it looks as though he is going to make a telling point.
This debate farce has degenerated to the point of being a national embarrassment. I cannot imagine who in the Romney camp signed of on Crowley as moderator, but that person should be unemployed by now.
Does anyone else believe as I do that Obama has already torpedoed his performance (except among the trully committed liberals)?
Obama said he will be more spirited and agressive in the upcoming debate, but IMO Americans respect spiritedness and agressiveness when it is the outgrowth of a deeply held belief or vision which they defend.
By announcing that he will be spirited and agressive, Obama has announced that he will don those traits like one dons an opera cape; i.e., as an artificial accessory with little function but to impress.
How can one “manufacture” spirited commentary and still think his message will be considered genuine?
texexec: if Romney doesn’t know how to handle adolescent theatrics from President Obama, then he doesn’t deserve to win. He’s had years to watch, first-hand, how dirty the mud-slinging can get.
Me, I’m hopeful. In the first debate, my wish was that Romney would find a gentlemanly way to call the President a liar; it had to be done. And he did it! “Mr. President, you’re entitled to your own house and your own airplane, but you’re not entitled to your own facts.”
I think you’ve nailed the correct approach here. Keep fighting, and stay classy. (That’s a winning strategy for either of them, actually. But President Obama seems able to do only one at a time.)
Heads up! Neo!
This!
…not really that far off topic. But needs it’s own sure-to-be-hilarity filled post.
Neo-Neocon wrote: The fact that so many people still consider Obama a nice guy remains a deep puzzlement to me.
It does to me, too, though there’s one theory presented here which is basically a version of the Bradley/Wilder effect. That at least makes sense to me because I can’t see who would think he was a nice guy or want to spend time with him–even less so after that Jodi Kantor article appeared in the New York Times.
Here’s hoping that the number of people who say they think he’s likable goes down significantly after Tuesday night’s debate.
Mr. Nice Guy’s goofy VP said to Ryan, “Well, you voted for the cut to State Department’s Security Budget.” When Obama repeats that tomorrow or next week, I hope Romney knows this http://townhall.com/tipsheet/katiepavlich/2012/10/15/obama_adminstration_had_2_billion_in_extra_consulate_security_money_when_benghazi_attack_occured <– $2 billion in the State Dept security kitty, unspent.
Mr. Nice Guy: cuts don't just mean cuts. They mean cuts AND do the job well. Jobs actually require work and attention, Mr. Nice Guy.
The following is a headline over at Nwsbusters:
Is this a liberal “dogwhistle” to Candy Crowley asking her not to go easy on Romney to impede his chances . . . . or am I just being paranoid?
Read more: http://newsbusters.org/#ixzz29Nz19274
T: exactly.
In an earlier version of this post, I had a paragraph where I said something like, “And here I thought liberals liked authenticity!”
If Obama is going to be more aggressive in the next debate, he will end up looking foolish there too. Its like the old saying about generals always fighting the last war.
This debate will be a “town hall” where regular people (picked by Gallup) ask questions, and the candidates respond with something that kinda sounds like an answer. The key to winning, or at least not losing, is to be friendly, engaging and confident.
The last thing the president needs right now is to be seen screaming at some little old lady about how Romney wants to give 47% of the country cancer.
Obama know how to be a warrior, but not a happy warrior.
He can be more aggressive, but we’ve seen him in this mode – his “You didn’t build that!” speech comes to mind – and he’s snide & derisive. This will not play well against Romney’s assertive but enthusiastic debating style. No doubt Obama will unload all of his negative campaign ad ammo – “47%”, war on women, Bain, etc. I’d be really surprised if Romney isn’t prepared for it. I also don’t see Romney letting him get away with constant interruptions.
Neoneocon: ““And here I thought liberals liked authenticity!”
I do suspect you are being ironic (sorry, my irony meter is out for repair). It has been my experience that the left is always enamored of appearance rather than substance, which is, perhaps, one fundamental reason Obama won in 2008 (and remember that was only by 6%).
IMO this reliance on appearances even translates to economic and social policies. Ask a progressive which s/he thinks is better for the nation, 50% of $100,000 or 10% of $1,000,000. They go for the 50% almost every time.
Affirmative action is another arena. I just saw a post this morning which noted that AA policies at universities produce students less likely to complete degree studies and more likely to fail certification exams such as the Bar.
Results don’t matter, just as long as it looks like all is equal.
T: actually, my intent was to be sarcastic. And when I attempt to make a distinction between “ironic” and “sarcastic,” I’m being pedantic.
First, I think the first debate was really the important one, since it allowed voters to see Romney and decide if he was a reasonable choice.
Obama’s only argument has beent he Romney isn’t a reasonable choice, and that fell apart in the first debate.
Obama can’t argue for 4 more years of the same thing, and he doesn’t seem to have any plan. Attacking Romney will likely cut into his likability numbers, very much a double edged sword.
Neo has been a solid Romney supporter for awhile now. Initially I assumed this was due to a moderate worldview. I recall Neo giving Obama the benifit of the doubt early on, something she was wrong on, but with respect to Romney she hit the nail on the head from the beginning.
Also, given Obama’s personality I’m not sure how well he can do agressive while appearing reasonable. Romney has experience doing that, as governor and CEO. Buisness, in particular, demands that skillset.
It seems to me that the perception of Obama being nice is based upon superficials: speeches where he’s serious and repeating a script designed to appear bipartisan. When confronted, his approach is to go with something like “I won”.
T wrote: It has been my experience that the left is always enamored of appearance rather than substance, which is, perhaps, one fundamental reason Obama won in 2008 (and remember that was only by 6%).
You’re right about that, T, but the left always loves to talk about authenticity, which is why they are great targets for ridicule in that area. They love to praise the foreign and the primitive as authentic and to deride American culture for its supposed lack of authenticity. And yet they fall for political con artists like Obama all the time.
DonS: I judged Obama back in 2008 to be a complaining, buck-passing, juvenile narcissist, who screwed his political rivals over and over (from the start: Google “Alice Palmer” or do a search for it on this blog) and was probably what I referred to as a “soft Socialist” (in a post I wrote in October of 2008, before the election).
You probably are remembering the fact that at the inauguration I said let’s wait a bit and see what he actually does before we succumb to Obama Derangement Syndrome. That he would show what he was made of soon enough. And he did, quite soon.
Here’s a history of my attitude towards Obama (part II is here).
T –
Agree with you. If I had to guess, I’d say there will be fewer people tuning into the grudge match than the first one; with the hard left democrats outnumbering the rest of us, hoping for revenge.
I wouldn’t expect Romney to be confused by a Bain attack, or a character assault, as they’ve promised, or even take the bait. The fact that it’s been “leaked” that Obama is going on the attack character is a strategy in itself. Get your opponent off topic before the debate begins.
Romney seems smart enough to turn the attacks into a positive message and stick to policy while deflecting personal criticisim. If Obama spends most of his time attacking character and trying to distract everyone with 47% comments and whatnot, there’s alot of material Obama has served up over the years that can be served back to shut it down in a hurry.
The only people he will make happy talking about Romney will be the rabid left wing who are still distraught. The independents, if they’re watching, are supposed to be interested in how to get the country moving, not debate the fate of a grown man who wears a chicken costume to work.
If he accepts the premise that a country of 320 million people are really interested in hearing their presidential candidates debating trivial, childish matters, then he will lose. If he stays above the distractions Obama’s campaign are promising, he will make Obama look trivial himself.
IMO, too much is now being made on the left about the Obama’s lack of style and agressiveness, and it sounds as though they have forgotten the underlying reason he got his ass handed to him — he didn’t know what he was talking about. That hasn’t changed – even though he’s been memorizing talking points. But that’s not a substitute for understanding issues, and not a substitute for knowlege. The best he can do is sound like the brilliant and charming Alan Combes, and lie profusely and frequently, which did not work last time either. …”you not entitled to your own facts”…
If it really is a debate, Romney will be as effective as before, simply because he has the facts in his head. Nothing builds confidence like knowledge, and I expect Romney will be ready to knowledgeably discuss the issues at hand. For 2 weeks we’ve been told that the next 2 debates are all important, but I think that’s a story the media has invented to convince itself Obama is the winner.
Lizzy –
“Obama knows how to be a warrior, but not a happy warrior.”
DonS –
“Given Obama’s personality, I’m not sure how well he can do aggressive while appearing reasonable.”
Basically, this. Obama is in a really bad spot, and his reading of the situation as one of him not being enough of an a**hole only makes it worse for him.
The thing that I’ve come to see about Romney that I failed to appreciate the importance of before is that he really is – “authentically,” to use the lefty term – a happy man, optimistic by nature (the Mormonism helps a lot there too). He is also authentically smart.
Now, when he gets into a situation like a town hall debate, it actually tends to bring out those, his strongest, qualities. His genuine sweetness and concern for others cannot help but come out, filtered through his obvious intelligence.
Obama and his crew simply do not understand that THAT is their problem. What they had banked on as being Romney’s achilles’ heel – the fact that people don’t like him (because they don’t know him) – is just gone, baby, gone, evaporated into the ether like the words of an Obama stump speech. Every opportunity Romney has to “be Romney” in front of tens of millions of people is inherently bad for Obama, not matter what Obama says or does.
On a personal level, there’s this experience everyone knows, which I think goes to the root of Obama’s problem here. When you meet someone who is *authentically* kind and happy, it shines forth and gives you a kind of “warm glow” feeling. I think people got that feeling from Obama because a) they WANTED him to be authentically nice and optimistic, and b) Obama actually did appear that way contrasted with McCain.
But Romney, alas for Obama, is in this regard the anti-McCain. Next to Romney, it is Obama who looks like the dour, listless old fart.
A very powerful thing, that. And “going negative” will only exacerbate it.
I hope Obama follows through on his…er… threat.
I like how the acronym for Obama Derangement Syndrome – ODS – sounds like “odious.”
I predict he’ll get limp and twisted around his own petard being nice about being mean.
His adorers say he plays chess while the Repubs play checkers. Ha. You cannot dispense truth from a bed of hopes. You cannot win when you lost your (Catholic) Bishops and a Rook (Hillary), a maybe a couple of Knights (the economy, the strength of America in the world) and you just have some pawns left, bowing to you.
Mitt can keep asking if he has any actual arguments to back up his claim to re-election. That should get under The Won’s skin pretty quickly.
Daniel in Brookline, I do wonder how you can think The Won can “stay classy” at all. I have never seen that.
M of Hollywood, I like that about Hilary! being a rook. She’s rooked enough of us already.
M of Hollywood,
“he plays chess while the Repubs play checkers”
But they overlook the fact that in chess all you get to do is thwart someone else’s king. In checkers you get to make yourself king.
I second the comments from Lizzy and DonS re Obama’s personality. His whole image revolves around being “cool,” which will make it difficult to get aggressive, which by definition is hot emotionally. If he opts for aggressiveness he’ll be caught between the psychological Scylla and Charybdis of on one hand looking mean-spirited and spiteful, and on the other of looking desperate. He’s more accustomed to accepting yet another accolade than he is to throwing brickbats.
And that’s not taking into account the possibility that Romney may be able to give as good as he gets, and then some. In a slanging match, incumbency is a liability, not an asset, and God knows Obama has a woeful record of performance.
Neo: “The fact that so many people still consider Obama a nice guy remains a deep puzzlement to me.”
A couple of reasons. One is no one wants to be seen as the weird kid, you know ,the one who sees the snark master as a humorless , cruel and ultimately stupid poser he is . Think about the bullies in life
The second possibility is that people who believe that about Teleprompter Jesus are simply too stupid to live
W/ regard to Obama’s likeability, I saw a post this morning (sorry, forget which one) that discussed Obama’s likeability appropos of the Bradley effect.
The writer made a parallel point about the Stanford Univ football coach (who is black). He pointed out that some sportswriter, in a review of the Stanford Notre Dame game, noted that Stanford’s coach was a decent and likeable guy but . . . and then that sports reporter went on to critically devastate Stanford’s coaching prowess in a scathing review. The only nice thing in the review was the initial “likeable guy” disclaimer.
The point? The sportswriter included the introductory disclaimer (he’s a nice guy) to make it clear from the outset that his critique had nothing to do with the coach’s race. The author I read pointed out that this would have never been included if the coach was white; a white coach would have been taken straight to the figurative chopping block. Nice guy? Screw him—lousy coach!
The author then transferred this idea to Obama. The likeability factor may well be the same kind of introductory disclaimer that explains an upcoming anti-Obama vote as “not racist.”
So if “likeability” polls are really “I ain’t votin’ for Obama” polls, then perhaps, Neo, this is the answer to your puzzlement. We’ll see in a couple of weeks.
Somewhat off topic, but in a way right ON topic:
I just watched “2016:Obama’s America” on pay-per-view TV. I had wanted to go see in in a theater but just hadn’t gotten around to it and knew it would be available before the election anyway.
It explains why Obama has done the things he has done and why he got elected in as good a way as I have seen. The movie is largely based on Dinesh D’Souza’s book, “The Roots of Obama’s Rage”, which I read just after it came out.
The movie and the book point out Obama’s underlying thinking as anti-colonial and that he see’s America as having taken over European colonialism. Thus he’s anti-American.
The movie is now available on all major pay-per-view movie channels and as a DVD.
PLEASE beg any friends who can be swayed to watch this movie.
PLUS, if you are on Twitter or Facebook, tell everyone to watch it.
Watch the debate tomorrow through the lens of Obama’s anti-colonialism (and thus his anti-American feelings).
Texexec – It’s available on Amazon instant video, too. Now I need to watch it..
T wrote: W/ regard to Obama’s likeability, I saw a post this morning (sorry, forget which one) that discussed Obama’s likeability appropos of the Bradley effect.
I linked to that post in my first comment above… 🙂
2016 is also available on itunes, where I watched it. I don’t know if they did this on purpose, but they did not put it up front on the movies homepage when it was released, so I had to actually search for it.
I liked it, and it really isn’t a fire-breathing kind of movie. Certainly a lot of it is contentious, but D’Souza makes his points without Michael Moore-style mendacity. It’s so toned-down that there are patches where it’s just boring. But that’s what makes it an effective film, I gather.
Occam’s Beard wrote: And that’s not taking into account the possibility that Romney may be able to give as good as he gets, and then some. In a slanging match, incumbency is a liability, not an asset, and God knows Obama has a woeful record of performance.
I’m voting for “and then some” with respect to Romney’s ability to respond. He had some great lines like that in the first debate. The best one was probably the one about having been the father of five boys: it made it abundantly clear who was the adult on the stage, and who was acting like the petulant and dishonest child. It “humanized” Romney and it mocked Obama, but it did both things subtly.
@kolnai at 1:45 pm “…the fact that people don’t like him (because they don’t know him) — is just gone, baby, gone…”
I resemble that remark!
…with apologies to Curly.
Kurt @4:44
Thanks!
The best one was probably the one about having been the father of five boys: it made it abundantly clear who was the adult on the stage, and who was acting like the petulant and dishonest child. It “humanized” Romney and it mocked Obama, but it did both things subtly.
And also provided a contrast with the fatherhood style, if you’ll pardon the exaggeration, of Barack Sr.
I, too, have always wondered why folks consider him a “nice guy.” I just don’t see it, really I don’t. Giving the finger to hillary, telling her she is “nice enough”. Calling McCain a “dead fish”, etc. He is mean, just plain mean!
But, Gringo, you may have hit something here:
. . . Al Sharpton and Jessee Jackson, who could make a reading grocery list sound like Armageddon.”
Despite that being one of the funniest comments I have ever read (and it is funny because they really could make reading a grocery list sound angry) I think maybe it is because so many liberals still judge people by the “group” that they belong to.
In this case they see Obama, as first and foremost, a black man, and he isn’t that “angy” for being a black man. They would expect all black men to be angry; and he just doesn’t come across that way. Maybe that’s why they think he is nice. Good call!
Neo: “The fact that so many people still consider Obama a nice guy remains a deep puzzlement to me.”
There’s no obvious explanation for why “the nice guy” myth continues. I think it’s just that at some point, for someone, reality breaks through the gauzy apparition, and that person begins to see the emperor’s nudity. Now and then I try to point out reality to some entrenched leftist, but it’s a fool’s errand. If they don’t want to see it, they won’t.
And I definitely agree with T, it has partly, maybe mostly, to do with race. I often perceive leftists as striving to demonstrate that they’re clean of racism, and only after that’s made clear will they undertake to (softly) criticize one of their own. Conservatives, on the other hand, just go ahead and criticize. They breeze right past race, because for them it’s not a factor when evaluating someone’s performance.
This is politically incorrect, and also sinks to the level of hopelessly immature, but everytime I see Candy on TV, I cannot reconcile her name with the actual physical person. For some reason, the name Candy brings to mind an image of a much smaller, younger girl, not a Packers all-pro offensive tackle.
Pardon my interruption into the serious exchange of ideas, which have all been good. I need to start Monday on a light note . I will return to my petrie dish now.
BHO’s problem in the next debate is that he has to make an appeal not to the Code Pink base, but to that sliver of undecided voters who want a reason to vote for BHO or Romney. The only way to do that is to channel Romney in the first debate. For BHO this is mission impossible. BHO needs to have Peter Graves to stand in for him. Unfortunately for BHO Peter Graves is no longer alive.
I predict BHO will be snarky, condescending, and an all around narcissistic jerk. All Romney has to do is concentrate on all the failures Obama has ‘built’.
Spirited and aggressive or not, the problem Obama has is that he must defend theindefensible. Furthermore, he’s simply not conversant with facts. I fully expect him to throw around rheotrical points, sometime snarky points, and I fully expect Romney to counter with facts.
I also think that there’s a real danger for Obama to overplay his hand. If Kolnai was correct in his comment ont he vp debate (that what Biden did to Ryan is how liberals interpreted what Romney has done to Obama)
then it’s likely that Obama will attempt payback. I suspecty that this will not work out well for Obama.
(Sorry for the break).
Parker wrote:
>>> BHO needs to have Peter Graves to stand in for him.
Interesting choice, and you may well be correct. A very good friend of mine grew up as a neighbor and good friend of Peter Graves’ family, and tells me that Graves (though he could misbehave) was — at least in his experience of him — a genuinely nice man.
Jamie Irons
Tuesday’s debate will have fewer viewers than the first debate: competing with the Yankees-Tigers playoff game.
@T at 5:51 pm “…the problem Obama has is that he must defend the indefensible.”
Game, set, and match.
“But they overlook the fact that in chess all you get to do is thwart someone else’s king. In checkers you get to make yourself king.”
T, I heart you.
I also hark back to southpaw’s comment about how everybody’s all exercised about the President’s being “nice” in the debate when, in fact, he was not nice, he was just flat-out outclassed. He didn’t respond aggressively because he couldn’t think of anything to say. His demeanor wasn’t purposeful; it was panicked.
I’m willing to give him a bit of a pass because it was the Obamas’ anniversary, but honestly? When you’re President, and you have almost four years in office at a difficult time in the country’s history behind you, you ought to be able to compartmentalize at least a little, yes?
By the same token, I believe that the VP’s demeanor, while purposeful, was as tone-deaf as it was because he couldn’t think of anything to say either. As Ryan said again and again, they can’t run on their record, so they have to convince voters to run from their opponents.
Even without a sporting event, I predict fewer viewers for tomorrow’s debate, and particularly fewer on the left – because (I’m projecting some here, but I think I’m relatively cognitively normative) I think in their secret heart(s) of hearts, they know their champion was flattened in #1 and they don’t want to witness its happening again. I’m thinking maybe they’ll claim to have listened to it on the radio, afterward, and declare a victory on “substance” divorced from body language and telegenics.
(And I think they’ll be wrong.)
“Tuesday’s debate will have fewer viewers than the first debate: competing with the Yankees-Tigers playoff game.”
Tigers are the superior team, but in baseball it ain’t over until its over. In general, when it comes to the World Series I’m a National League partisan. I want to see the Giants repeat 2010, provided they make it through the playoffs.
Obama has lived off being presented as “Mr Cool Breeze”. That he’s ready to dump that facade should get extremely interesting. I personally think the man is one poignant narcissistic injury away from a jaw dropping rage.
I personally think the man is one poignant narcissistic injury away from a jaw dropping rage.
I’d pay to see that unfold on live tv.
And I refuse to take seriously any adult woman who is not a porn actress and yet goes by the name “Candy.”
Southpaw,
I enjoyed your comment. 🙂
Random Thoughts wrote: And I refuse to take seriously any adult woman who is not a porn actress and yet goes by the name “Candy.”
So does that mean you’d take an adult woman named Candy seriously if she was a porn actress? 🙂
“So does that mean you’d take an adult woman named Candy seriously if she was a porn actress?”
My unsolicited advice is to stay at least 3 yards away a porn actress, especially one named Candy.
Obama only knows how to be snarky and thin-skinned. This ought to look great on HD TV.
Preezy’s foreign policy is a fiasco, all of it. If that’s the topic for tomorrow night, even I could win the debate against him.
We’re getting the pop corn ready.
Parker, If I wander to within three yards of a porn actress named Candy what can I expect?
Not sure about porn stars named Candy; But, I’ve heard that a wife named Lorena Bobbitt can be a real hack, so, you should stay at least 3 yards away from her.
“If I wander to within three yards of a porn actress named Candy what can I expect?”
Disease.
Parker:
“BHO’s problem in the next debate is that he has to make an appeal not to the Code Pink base, but to that sliver of undecided voters who want a reason to vote for BHO or Romney.”
I’m not sure he’s going to play it that way. It is possible that at this point they may think there are not enough undecideds and the best strategy is to turn out the base, in which case he may go with something approaching full Biden. That has been a key component of his strategy all along since he can’t run on his record. Whether that would actually be more effective is another question.
Parker also, later:
“I want to see the Giants repeat 2010” Yay! I live in the SF area and am a long-time Giants fan.
“An adolescent knows how to appeal to adolescents” indeed, texexec.
I teach kids. Adolescence sells these days.
Keep on keepin’ on.
I don’t think BO will come across as angry, unless he decides to pull the righteous indignation act while accusing Romney of some malfeasance.
I expect him, like Saruman, to exert all his powers to charm and soothe and seduce. He won’t pay that much attention to Romney; he’ll try to make tomorrow about “him. And us.” He’ll try to draw the magic circle around us again, excluding the annoying, grating Daddy Figure that no one wants to listen to.
For a sample of this mode, see the longer version of his talk about ‘necessarily bankrupting’ the coal industry. He makes it sound almost . . . reasonable. And he looks into the camera with such melting sincerity, that even I, despising him as I do and knowing what a liar he is, felt the pull.
Don’t underestimate him. He’s wily and dangerous, and he didn’t get to be the leader of the Free World without formidable powers of manipulation. (I think we here can agree that it wasn’t on raw brain power.)
Here is a sample of BO the Seducer:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DpTIhyMa-Nw
Notice that it’s exactly in a Town Hall setting that he shifts to this mode: saying outrageous things in the most reasonable tone in the world.
“”The fact that so many people still consider Obama a nice guy remains a deep puzzlement to me.””
Neo
I don’t think it has much to do with Obama the man. It has to do with the liberal’s reflexive need to see blacks in general in the most positive of light as a form of maintenance to combat unacceptable and taboo feelings.
Of course this conflict within liberals makes human nature kick in and prompts blacks to see quite a windfall if liberals never quite reconcile with these feelings anytime soon.
So the blacks vote for a racial divider in the 95 percentile range. And liberals see they need to work harder on their feelings.
Baklava — Last night, Bill O’Reilly and Bernie Goldberg offered a bit of unintentional support to my immaturity, by constantly discussing “Candy’s roll” in the segment about the debate.
Adolescence indeed.
Gary Rosen:
It is possible that at this point they may think there are not enough undecideds and the best strategy is to turn out the base.
Does “turning out the base” mean that mean that there will be 3 million votes for ∅bama in Cook County, Illinois? 🙂
[I have learned that one way to piss off a Democrat is to make reference to ballot box stuffing in Cook County. ]