Good post. I'm feeling optimistic but the election is still 100 days away. I have a hard time thinking that America could choose another Republican in 2008, but I'm worried about unforeseen events that might change the election equation to the GOP's favor.
I, too, am optimistic. Zogby has him at 273 EV right now, Real Clear Politics poll of poll puts him at 322 EV on their "no toss ups" chart. But it is a long time till November. There have been candidates who led in July only to fall flat in November. I'll breathe easy when he has recited that inaugural pledge on the Capitol steps next January 20.
I do think the trip abroad has been helpful in showcasing his aplomb in dealing with the kinds of touchy situations Presidents face often. He is doing a near perfect job walking the fine line between appearing Presidential without appearing pretentious. He has dominated the news and these images have to be reassuring to voters who agree with Obama on the issues but have had misgivings about his competency in foreign affairs. He seems absolutely at ease in these situations, and that puts us and US at ease with him as President.
Perhaps the reason he is doing such a near perfect job is that it is all scripted. Seems to me that Obama's folks are doing a lot of staging to make all the soundbites, interviews and photos from his trip look successful. Even Andrea Mitchell is complaining of the inability to report accurately.
http://newsbusters.org/node/2275...fake-
interviews
I'd like to see him handle an authentic trip to a war zone and an authentic interview. So far, he does well in scripted situations, but falls flat when he has to speak off the cuff.
Sorry - that last comment was mine. The "Micah" was a leftover from another thread.
Hello, Micah, and welcome to the limb.
I would be disappointed if someone who is running for President had not planned well for such a trip.
You can be sure that Rovian Republicans will write a "script" for themselves to try to refute, minimize, ridicule, and otherwise spin the trip to their advantage. That's part of their political game. And you can count on their echo chamber to repeat it ad infinitum. Those who are Republican partisans will see Obama's preparation as scripting. A more free-wheeling approach would be labeled by them as naive or incompetent.
It just won't work this time, Micah. Obama is too clearly brilliant, reasonable, competent, patriotic, articulate, to succumb to the sort of baseless attacks that have worked in the past.
Obama will not and should not, be goaded by Andrea Mitchell or any other reporter, into speaking in a way that would be seen as interfering in international affairs. That would give Rove's disciples the gaffe they are praying for. As Senator Obama has been careful to remind us, America has only one President at a time.
Obama has handled himself very well, on the cuff, by the cuff, around the cuff, and in every other prepositional relationship to the cuff. I believe the trip has helped to reassure those concerned about his relatively brief experience in international affairs.
One thing is for sure, IMHO, he comes across as more "Presidential" than either the current occupant of that office or the presumptive Republican nominee.
It's been a rough week for John McCain. Here is how McCain handled one "off the cuff" question:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?
v=6...feature=related
If I agreed with McCain's stand on the issues, I'd vote for him despite his awkwardness in the clip above. We all have bad moments. I'm sure Obama will have his share during the next three months, but I haven't seen one on his part this week.
I am going to vote for Barack Obama for many reasons, among them
• that he is a dynamic leader,
• that he is principled but open-minded,
• that he does not condemn those with whom he disagrees,
• that he actually listens and answers questions instead of spouting soundbites,
• that he is a thoughtful and inspiring speaker,
• that he represents an opportunity to help bridge the racial divide in our country,
• that he is, IMHO, "authentic".
But the prime reason I will vote for him is that his stands on the issues that are important to me are very close to my own.
Well... there WERE those great b'ball shots. Scripting those three-pointers is my favorite thing his handlers did. And choreographing those hundreds of soldiers to cheer him and ask for autographs. (I wonder what they were paid?) And composing that monologue for al Maliki was brilliant. Oh! And writing in the bit about Bush negotiating with the Iranians! Those Obama folks sure know how to stage an inauthentic visit to a war zone. 
I guess we were writing simultaneously Carol.
Thanks for the comment.
You gush too effusively over one trip, a trip Obama was goaded into by his critics.
Sometimes a newcomer will come in and excel. But liberal Democrats are notorious for poor foreign policy, e.g. your buddy Carter.
>>>>...provided we have the wisdom to elect him in November.
This rankles me a bit, with the implication that those who don't vote for Obama are stupid, or lack some knowledge. It is the usual condescension we get from liberals, who think more facts and knowledge will lend strength to their opinions.
Welcome back, Fred. Haven't heard from you in a while.
I admit to believing I am right. (Shock!) Therefore, as much as it grieves me to have to admit it, (I am so sorry!) I believe that, on many issues, you my friend are wrong.
I have noticed your reticence to point to any lack of wisdom you may see in any of my positions.
Seriously, I certainly do not find my political opponents stupid, and have never said so. I have often, by definition, considered their views that diverge from my best wisdom, unwise. I presume they consider my differences with them unwise.
Perhaps your comment did not mean to indicate Carter's foreign policy was unwise?
>>>>I have often, by definition, considered their views that diverge from my best wisdom, unwise.
You are still claiming that your opinion is more meritorious. Which makes me wonder: does liberalism, at its core, favor a meritocracy? On its face, liberalism appears to push for equality and redistribution of wealth, but maybe these are ways to buy off the lower achievers, and free the high achievers to pursue their in-group status battles.
Note: I wrote the following very quickly while I wolfed down a sandwich at lunch. I decided to edit it somewhat tonight.
Fred, I don't understand your argument.
Of course, I believe my opinions are "more meritorious", else they would not be my opinions. I assume you believe your arguments are "more meritorious". If not I may be dealing with a comedian rather than a serious debater.
Should I express things I do not believe wise? I try to be open-minded. I try to listen to contrary arguments and consider them honestly. I change my opinions when others convince me of my errors. There can be no doubt that among the many opinions I hold there are bound to be some mistaken ones. But they are my best wisdom as long as I hold them.
I assume you believe your opinions are true, by definition. I respect your intelligence. I will assume you have noble motives. But several of them are unwise by my lights. That's no insult. It is simple fact that "by my lights" they are unwise. By way of the comments I welcome you to attempt to adjust my vision.
I am interested in debating ideas. That is our right and even our duty in a democracy.
I believe you and I as citizens should, dispassionately as possible, discuss our opinions on the issues, and try to arrive at as much common ground as possible - perhaps occasionally actually opening the eyes of the other to discrepancies/mistakes in his own thinking or the wisdom in our own. That is debate. That is democracy. We can each respect the motives, the intelligence, the competency of the other without agreeing on everything.
I suppose I do believe in a "meritocracy" of ideas -- and I think you do too. We just have different opinions about the merits of some ideas. I certainly do not believe in an unfettered meritocracy of economy (I don't believe one is possible. If it were, the conscientious sanitation worker, performing a job more valuable to society, would out-earn the cosmetic surgeon who limits his practice to paralyzing the faces of Joan Rivers and Mary Tyler Moore.) Nor do I believe in unfettered socialism for economy. (Efforts at pure socialism have been stark failures.)
I am very confused about what you are trying to say. It sounds as if you believe disagreement with you is tantamount to elitism, meritocracy, etc. I have to wonder if there is some sort of miscommunication between us.
I always enjoy reading your comments (even puzzling ones). Thanks for joining the conversation.
Edited By Siteowner
>>>>Of course, I believe my opinions are "more meritorious", else they would not be my opinions.
There is more to it. Go over to Daily Kos, quote Lenin and Marx, and you are greeted as a hero. Quote Milton Friedman, and you will be called an idiot, unworthy to have sunlight wasted on your existence. Is Friedman less wise than Marx? I think not, but this is lost in the typical emotional post one gets on the internet.
There is quite a lot of emotional freight attached to our political beliefs. It is more than thinking we have the best car. We are often called into harness to support a political system of busybodies who want to keep their 'wisdom' flowing.
Here is a line of yours from above: "Obama is too clearly brilliant, reasonable, competent, patriotic, articulate,..."
I don't think Obama is brilliant. He may be above average, but I see no evidence that he is brilliant. Is it wise for you to write this, or are you eager to promote Obama in some sort of emotionally massaging way, so you shower him with the coinage of intelligence, a coinage he has not earned?
My argument is that political discussions are emotional, and we toss in things like "smart", "stupid", "wise", etc. as supports, but when pressed we don't really want to have our IQ test scores promulgated. Better to say "I know intelligence when I see it" so we can keep it as a way to reward our friends and punish our enemies.
That was me above.
"... typical emotional post one gets on the internet...."
"... political system of busybodies..."
You are certainly right that there is a lot of emotional cheering and booing of our political horses, and especially from blogging jockeys. Check out the blogs with McCain's colors and you will find at least as much frothing as you find at Daily Kos. I dislike random and targeted spittle from all sides. One of my objects has been to try to keep discussions here, at least relatively, dispassionate.
I am, I admit, a passionate supporter of Barack Obama, even though he was actually not my first choice for the nomination.
I find Barack Obama worthy of the adjectives I have given him. I can think of no more inspiring Presidential candidate in my lifetime. Kennedy, Reagan and Clinton were inspiring at times, but none of those could inspire like Obama does. None could cut to the core of an issue so clearly and honestly. To me his campaign, his speeches, his debates, his development of his platform, have been very well done. He has stumbled, on occasion, and will again, but his eloquence and sincerity are so clear in my eyes as to seem self-evident. These are my opinions. I will, no doubt, find other opportunities to praise my preferred candidate and make no apologies for that. I will try to use precise language and, when I have time, support my adjectives with examples. But this is not a paid job. I do not have time to research and annotate every post. 
And yes, like every human being with whom I am acquainted, I am an emotional creature. Sometimes my emotions will spur me to go over the line in praise of my heroes or condemnation of those with whom I disagree. I believe I am supporting a candidacy that can be an historic one. I believe I am supporting the best one for my country. I admit it is difficult, at times, to keep my rhetoric from galloping a bit. Thank you for helping me to, once again, resolve to rein in my emotions a bit.
BTW, as someone trained in the education of gifted students, and having taught "gifted" classes for 11 years, and lots of highly intelligent students during my 29 year career, I can report that I never noticed a high correlation between wisdom and high scores on intelligence tests. As a matter of fact, some of the wisest people I have known in my 61 years include a few who were very poorly educated and some who would likely score well below me or you on any IQ test.
I would read a blog by Right Said Fred - you should crank one up.
>>>>I find Barack Obama worthy of the adjectives I have given him.
I don't. What we have here is the power of virginity: Obama is largely a blank slate upon which his supporters can project their fantasies of a future where the government helps us feel better through good regulation. Bah. That we can fall for such a candidate does not encourage me.
>>>>I do not have time to research and annotate every post.
I don't like this line, with its implication that research and more facts will support your side. Would you be willing to change your political persuasion if the facts and research lined up against you? I think not. We might get some modification, but your basic drift is set.
>>>>. As a matter of fact, some of the wisest people I have known in my 61 years include a few who were very poorly educated and some who would likely score well below me or you on any IQ test.
So, do you think "wisdom" is a measurable commodity? There seems to be an implication here that it is.
We all have anecdotal stories about the high IQ person who is a bum, or the low scorer who is a high achiever, but IQ has a surprisingly high correlation with success in life, much higher than any other metric. I'll entertain any other measure, but until then, IQ is something worth our attention.
Commenting by HaloScan
