See other Editorial Articles
Title: On Obama's steadiness
Source:
jamesfallows.theatlantic.com
URL Source: http://jamesfallows.theatlantic.com ... 08/10/on_obamas_steadiness.php
Published: Oct 19, 2008
Author: James Fallows
Post Date: 2008-10-19 00:26:20 by Ferret Mike
Keywords: None
Views: 165
Comments: 12
18 Oct 2008 11:05 pm As mentioned yesterday, what struck me most, in reviewing Barack Obama's oratorical and debate performance since the first cattle-call, Gravel-equipped televised debate early last year, was his unchanging nature. He got better as he went along, but as an improving version of the same thing. I said I couldn't be sure whether Obama's consistency arose from deliberate strategic choice, flawlessly executed over a very long time, or whether it simply reflects the way he is. Odds favor the latter. Reader D.M. writes about the way this trait has worked in the general election campaign: Second, by being bland, consistent and totally straight, any tactical changes by opponents makes them look erratic, scheming and without integrity. Had Obama joined in the personal mudslinging, he would have slipped his tether, and would have looked just like McCain. He's a mirror against which we view the opponent. He's a survey marker against which all territorial changes of opponents can be measured. It really is a new kind of politics. And in a related post here, Michael Batz argues that through the course of the debates, Obama has won the argument for "argument" -- that is, for a calm and reasoned approach to issues, not by going with emotion, anger, and the gut. He wrote to me: As always, I give the time-battered caution that we can't know how and whether these traits will work in office until we get a chance to see. But in making it likely that we will get that chance, the campaign approach has indeed been remarkable. And, as a subject for a later day, I remember how often, how vehemently, and with what certainty Obama's detractors during the Democratic primaries said that he could not, possibly, in any way, in any real world, withstand the onslaught of GOP negative campaigning once it geared up against him. That he's been seriously underestimated twice -- by the Hillary Clinton camp, and now by McCain -- doesn't prove his potential in office but is interesting.
I'm hoping it is a deliberate calculation on Obama's part, or else it is genuine and not a calculation at all, because it is brilliant. By being a rock- steady, unflappable, boring (according to some commentators) - Obama accomplishes two things. It's a lot harder to find any personality hooks for passionate dislike. See, e.g. Hillary's dynamism, Bush's feigned Texas dialect, McCain's temper.
In short, McCain is going for emotion and Obama for reason. Ordinarily, I'd go with emotion, but crazy times flip everything on its ear. I also am amazed, honestly, that Obama has used these debates to UTTERLY reverse his public persona from the great lofty orator with few specifics to the down- in-the-numbers reassuring policy wonk at the same time he practically destroyed McCain's leadership mantle by baiting him into anger and carefully pushing the message of McCain as erratic and unpredictable. It's pretty remarkable.
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#1. To: Ferret Mike (#0)
Thanks, Mike. Good article. His unflappability is remarkable, and I'm glad I'm not the only person who thinks Obama is brilliant... (October surprise thread) and it increasingly looks like we may have the opportunity to see how he does as President. GOBAMA!
I recall the same rhetoric about Clinton when he was the Golden Boy. I guess it'll all be different this time, eh?
Ahmadinejad in 2008! I disliked Clinton. He rubbed me the wrong way so many times in the election year the first time he ran I never went to his appearance in Eugene, Oregon and I didn't vote for him either time time he ran. My same intuition that warms to Obama range three alarm bells when I was figuring Clinton out.
Thanks for the warm post. Nice to see you in here, welcome.
I dislike politicians. I also mistrust the impulse in people that has a need to seek "Der Leader". That impulse has been the cause of millions of dead innocents and untold suffering. Obama might well be a nice guy. That won't make him immune from the crimes of the State for which he'll be culpable. Mark my words: Obama or McCain - no matter who wins, one of them will be blamed for the Great Sorrow that's coming.
Ahmadinejad in 2008! No kidding. Check out THIS article, it will truly blow your mind.
#2. To: salemguy, Ferret Mike (#1)
I'm not the only person who thinks Obama is brilliant...
Everyone agrees that unanimity is hard to find.
#3. To: bluegrass (#2)
"You only have power over people so long as you don't take everything away from them. But when you've robbed a man of everything he's no longer in your power -- he's free again. Alexander Solzhenitsyn
#4. To: salemguy (#1)
"You only have power over people so long as you don't take everything away from them. But when you've robbed a man of everything he's no longer in your power -- he's free again. Alexander Solzhenitsyn
#5. To: Ferret Mike (#3)
I disliked Clinton.
Everyone agrees that unanimity is hard to find.
#6. To: bluegrass (#5)
(Edited)
 | Gold and silver are REAL money, paper is but a promise. |
#7. To: bluegrass (#5)
Whoever wins will be the next Jimmy Carter. Post police action inflation? check. Massive debt from the welfare/warfare state? check. Sky high energy prices? check. However, this time we're going to have round 2 of LBJ style leadership. Lots of social programs to made the "D"s happy while at the same time plenty of funding for the military to placate the "R"s as well. Guns vs butter? Bah! Plenty of both for everyone! We'll cut income (taxes) while increasing spending everywhere and all the while reduce FEDGOV debt. How? Hope! That's how!
Mark my words: Obama or McCain - no matter who wins, one of them will be blamed for the Great Sorrow that's coming.
"The more I see of life, the less I fear death." - Me.
"If violence solved nothing, then weapons technology would have never advanced past crude clubs and rocks." - Me.
#8. To: bluegrass (#5)
The Great Sorrow -- That's a really good name for what lies ahead.
Mike Flaherty: Yeah, it's been there a long time. I wish I knew which corner.
My Man Godfrey (1936)
#9. To: Elliott Jackalope, wadosy (#6)
you're correct. that is a mindblowing article. wadosy, this is one that might interest you because of reference to peak oil in USSR prior to its collapse.
Do You Know What Freedom Really Means? Freedom4um.com
#10. To: christine (#9)
kinda hard to say what's going on with the russians... during the 1987 US stock market crash, the market was behaving pretty much the same as it is now. at the time, it seemed possible to me that there was some battle going on between the US and the soviets... and it seemed possible to me that the russians won, and, out of a position of strength, finally had enough breathing room to rid themselves of their empire, which they could no longer afford... ...all this being possible... not too awful probable. . anyhow, russian liquids production peaks in 1988, at maybe 11.5 million barrels a day, despite the propagandists' bullshit about russians' abiotic oil... and production crashes to about half in a couple years. so russia struggles out of its crash... which was duck soup because russia has its own oil, enough to export millions of barrels a day, and the price of oil was skyrocketing. i'm still suspicious of the whole chain of events, from the US stock market crash of 1987 onward... it is just barely possible that russians saw all this bullshit coming for years, at least since the early 70s, when american production peaked, and they did a rope-a-dope, sucked israeli american support into their oil industry ---by more-or-less giving russian oil, gas and pipelines to israeli russians--- and got back on their feet. once russian production started upwards again, putin began reclaiming his oil, to the dismay of the israeli americans who had been counting on israeli russians' participation in the PNAC project. ASPO oilwatch monthly small pdf lately, it looks like russian production is peaking again, a little lower than the 1988 peak, but on the other hand, it could be that russians are in no big hurry to pump the stuff right now... they may wait until israeli america collapses. all they have to do is sweat out the possibility of israel going nuts and starting world war 3.
#11. To: christine (#9) (Edited)
in september of 2001, israeli russians ---yukos oil jews and others--- were still in control of russian energy, thus ensuring oil supplies to israeli america once israeli americans begin tearing up the middle east oil patch in their project to rearrange the middle east to israeli spec... and exxon, shortly after 9/11, signs the sakhalin deal with russia, scheduled to become the largest foreign investment ever in russia.. but the handwriting was already on the wall as gusinsky, the israeli russian media oligarch, had already been purged, and had fled to israel. ...this handwriting, pointing to eventual expulsion of the yukos oil jews and other israeli russian gangsters, contributed to the urgency of getting the 9/11 project underway, in hopes of generating enough sympathy that putin would allow israeli russians to remain in control of russian energy.... by late 2003, the handwriting had become so obvious that khodorkovsky, the israeli russian boss of yukos, attempted to sell yukos to exxon, then run by CEO lee raymond ---the same lee raymond who became the vice-chairman of the board of the israeli american AEI think tank. by the end of 2004, the yukos oil jews and berezovsky were purged (most of them fleeing to israel), causing howls of outrage from the israeli american press and neocons like richard perle--- who is probably one of the masterminds of the whole dismal 9-11/PNAC project. and so the israelis and israeli americans would have to proceed with the PNAC project without guarantees of russian oil supplies in the event oil production was disrupted as the middle east was remodeled.
#12. To: Elliott Jackalope (#6)
Excellent article, and nice website - thanks.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest