« previous | TPM CAFÉ READER POSTS HOME | next »
This Year's Model - The Customer is Always Right
I remember people getting mad at Naderites in 2000 - why did they throw the election to Bush? And while I was a bit sympathetic - a few votes here and there could have made the difference - I also recognized that a few votes in a number of other areas made much more of a difference. As an example, Al Gore in the debates was asked what he would tell young people to make them vote for him. He launched into prescription benefits and social security. Which took me back to when I interviewed for my first real job, with the governent, a week before I turned 21. The guy who was showing me around (only mid-30's I think but feeling a bit older) started telling me about retirement benefits. Wow! I looked at him as if he was from Mars, though I guess I kept the green tint off my face and didn't let out any eep-oork-brrrups since I got the job and held it for a year before quitting from boredom.
But my point was that Gore had his chance on national TV direct-to-consumer, talk to this segment, and blew it. Sure, the media screwed him a thousand other times, but this was a slow ball mid plate and he fanned - no mention of internet, alternative fuels, world poverty, global warming, offshoring jobs - things that affect and interest new grads. And I can imagine a good solid answer might have roused the campus bunch (who came out for Bush in droves) much more than the few people Nader got.
And most importantly - Nader's voters had the right to choose who they thought best. The candidates are the aspiring public servants. The voters are the customers. Say it slowly - "it's their choice". Don't like it? Say it slower: "Convince them". Yes, that's the American way. The customer is always right.
So now we've hit that funny point this year, with the election 5 months away and some of the Democrats don't seem thrilled with the current nominee. What to think? "It's their choice. Convince them." I have personal experience with 7-year-olds that tells me "You have to!" won't work. Trust me. It's easier to convince than to force, and people of voting age tend to be more stubborn than 7-year-olds when it comes down to it. They don't seem too convinced? Try harder! That's right, persistence, perseverance, spice up your reasons, relate them to the audience, to the customer, figure out their reluctance and reasons and core interests and relate them to your candidate. The ingredients are very simple even if the full answer or sales pitch might not be.
Imagine telling a potential customer that they have to buy a particular car, that they're obligated to. Fat chance. Consumers work on basic emotions, so you can use the "you'll be sorry" tack, but remember, getting their back up is counterproductive - "you'll be sorry, don't be stupid" works poorly as a combination. "Hey, you're really out there on the front edge with features, so I know this will interest you... Sure you can go with the other model, and it'll get you around, but this one's stylin' - check out the sun roof and the front trim.... Sorry, we don't carry the other model, it didn't sell so well, but you can check out something similar at our competitors' - I send a lot of retired folks their way though most of them come back. Theirs is okay, but ours is practically driving itself off the lots, it's This Year's Model."
Comments (91)
In some cases maybe the customer is not ready for what you are selling. We almost always have Border Collies and Cattle Dogs available, both very high energy animals that need a lot of activity. Over the last year or so I have learned that as much as I would like to get these dogs a home they are not for everyone. If the person wanting to adopt weighs 300 pounds they are probably not going to be able to keep up with the dog, or if the person has a bunch of kids many times the Border Collie will spend all its time trying to herd the children(for some reason many parents think that is innopropriate) If someone like this comes in I try to convince them to go with an older moresedate animal, chubby Beagles are the best dogs for kids.
If on the other hand someone is a runner or a very active person these dogs are perfect for them and I do what I can to encourage them to take a young Border collie, Cattle Dog or a crazy lab.
My point is that some people are probably not really comfortable with Obama and his somewhat more youthful ideas for the country, Like today I saw that Obama met with people from the bike industry and was discussing ways to increase bicycle usage, if you are someone that thought the best thing for transportation was a gas tax holiday you are probably not going to appreciate what a bike friendly city can do for you and your family.
Just like negotiating a peaceful settlement with Iran will probably never appeal to the Obliterate Iran and take their oil crowd, same with Iraq, leaving Iraq within 16 month is not going to appeal to the stay in Iraq and take their oil crowd.
I am not saying Obama should turn down votes, but it would be foolish to pander to people that are not going to get what they want out of an Obama presidency and maybe some of what he is proposing is not for everyone; and at this point the choices are pretty clear, McCain is for many long wars and squeezing every drop of oil out of the ground and while he is at it lets get rid of Roe v Wade. Obama is looking at ways to use less oil and avoid wars.
June 20, 2008 9:58 AM | Reply | Permalink
So now we've hit that funny point this year, with the election 5 months away and some of the Democrats don't seem thrilled with the current nominee.
So what else is new? No candidate is going to thrill every voter.
I have personal experience with 7-year-olds that tells me "You have to!" won't work.
You don't have to. Really. You've got all the information you need. So if you think McCain would be a better president than Obama, then vote for McCain. David Seaton said that's what he's going to do. Why not join him?
getting their back up is counterproductive - "you'll be sorry, don't be stupid" works poorly as a combination.
If you really think that McCain would be a better president, and you have a clear idea of what you could expect from McCain (as I'm sure you do), then why would you be sorry? Maybe what drew you to Hillary was her hawkishness more than anything else. If you want neo-con-style hawkery, McCain's your best bet. Kyl-Lieberman is just the beginning.
But if you don't think that McCain would be a better president, and you're considering voting for him in spite of everything you know about him just to express your hurt feelings, then that's stupid, and you'll be sorry.
June 20, 2008 10:13 AM | Reply | Permalink
I've always found that the way to persuade someone has to start with listening. Only then can we really know which routes will be effective.
The example you mention, John, the gas tax crowd - perhaps they will not be convinced about a bike friendly transportation system. But, there are likely other issues that are important to them, which if you can determine before jumping into the argument, may be worthwhile to pursue.
That said, there are some people that no amount of reasoning and logic and measured discussion will make a dent with. Some hold irrational views. How can you argue with ardent irrationality? It's damn near impossible. Which is why even the most calm and reasonable people often become frustrated with those types of people.
I guess my point is all arguments should begin by knowing your audience as best you can.
But I don't agree that the customer is always right, in this particular situation.
June 20, 2008 10:14 AM | Reply | Permalink
It seem like thier are a fair number of people that their choice for president went Hillary, McCain, Obama. My guess is that people who are pro-choice and somewhat hawkish liked Hillary. Now that Hillary is out of the race the Hawkishness seems to win out over the pro-choice.
I also think that boomers want a boomer president, I don't think Obama can change for these people and if he did he would lose far more people than he would gain.
I think Obama would be wise to give Hillary a cabinet position if she wants, health and human services maybe but I doubt he can do much else to get Hillary supporters to vote for him. Maybe some Hillary supporters are better off voting for McCain.
June 20, 2008 10:45 AM | Reply | Permalink
I think this bit about hawkishness is just to dismiss Hillary fans once again. Some of us found Obama simply unbelievable (not that we have confidence in McCain's words or promises) and recent waffles don't improve our outlook. The boomer bit is nonsense as well. There are 30-year-old businessman who can go toe-to-toe with Obama in terms of accomplishment and competence. Again, customers have reasonable questions about the product and the salespeople just assume they have funny tastes and dismiss them. Très amusant.
June 20, 2008 11:01 AM | Reply | Permalink
Seems like you are saying you don't like Obama, or don't feel that he has enough experience, these are things the guy can't change.
I guess I underestimated the "Hillary is more experienced" argument. If time in Washington is an important issue for you maybe McCain is your man.
For me Hillarys desire to obliterate Iran and John McCains "bomb bomb bomb Iran" comments make them both unsuitable as president. Plus the Clinton/McCain gas tax holiday was one of the worst ideas ever, But if experience is the most importan thing for you, than by all means support McCain, he certainly has a lot of experience in DC and seems to know all the lobbiest and probably where all the good restaurants are as well.
June 20, 2008 11:21 AM | Reply | Permalink
Why necessarily time in Washington? I value Hillary's experience in Texas, Oakland, Fayetteville and Little Rock as well. I value McCain's experience in Hanoi and the open sea. I might value Obama's South Side experience if someone took the time to explain what he actually accomplished (lots of people spent years in Nader's PIRGs - how far does that experience go?). I don't value Obama's time in Washington much - as I've noted before, he had time to write and promote a book his first session while commuting back and forth to Chicago and of course running for president has taken up most of the last session.
June 20, 2008 11:32 AM | Reply | Permalink
Experience is only good if you learned something from it. McCain seems to want more Viet Nams maybe he is comfortable with the idea of people spending years in POW camps being tortured, after all he survived it why can't everyone.
All of Hillarys experience led her to support a bad war in Iraq and seems to lead her to supporting other wars. Many people in the 60's came away with the idea that wars of choice were bad, not McCain and Hillary, they seem to see the problem as losing a war of choice and do not appear to have a problem with going to war in the first place.
All of their experience in Hanoi and Arkansas and where ever else also led to the gas tax holiday, again all that experience didn't appear to lead to good judgement, it seemed to lead to cynical pandering and the country does not need more of that.
June 20, 2008 11:52 AM | Reply | Permalink
I value Hillary's experience in Texas, Oakland, Fayetteville and Little Rock as well. [...] I might value Obama's South Side experience if someone took the time to explain what he actually accomplished
So what did Hillary actually accomplish in Oakland or Fayetteville that makes you count that time toward her experience? You seem to be applying a very different standard in the two cases. You're giving Hillary experience points for basically anything she did, including interning at a law firm (Oakland) or teaching at a law school (Fayetteville), and not even a prestigious highly-ranked school. As for what Obama actually accomplished in Chicago, wikipedia has a summary:
What did Hillary do in Oakland that impresses you more than this? Wikipedia just says she was an intern.
June 20, 2008 2:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
She interned in Oakland, she taught law school for 2 years, she worked on campaigns, did support on the Watergate committee, was on the board of several huge charities. All these little things add up. (Can you tell me why it's better to teach a class at U Chicago than to teach more classes at U Arkansas?) A non-profit that went from $70K to $400K in 3 years is rather tiny, dontcha think? - just a little more than Michelle's salary in 2006 or about double Hillary's salary in 1991.
Try this one: "Also in 1977, Rodham co-founded the Arkansas Advocates for Children and Families, a state-level alliance with the Children's Defense Fund. And later that same year, President Jimmy Carter (for whom Rodham had done 1976 campaign coordination work in Indiana) appointed her to the board of directors of the Legal Services Corporation, and she served in that capacity from 1978 until the end of 1981. From mid-1978 to mid-1980 she served as the chair of that board, the first woman to do so. During her time as chair, funding for the Corporation was expanded from $90 million to $300 million; subsequently she successfully fought President Ronald Reagan's attempts to reduce the funding and change the nature of the organization."
$300 million vs. $400 thousand. Let that soak into your head a little bit.
June 20, 2008 3:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
What soaks into my head is that Mrs. Clinton served on boards and committees in boardrooms and back rooms. She was the governor's wife and the President's wife and no matter how smart and competent she really was, and she was and is, her privilege of position makes evaluating here accomplishments quite difficult.
What soaks into my head is that Barack worked in his community, or his adopted community, not because he was not capable of serving on boards and committees, but because that's wheree he felt he could make a difference.
Hillary is top down, Barack is bottom up. Hillary said she could solve our problems for us (after extensively soliciting our complaints). Barack said we won't solve our problems until we all get involved. One wants to be chairman of the board the other wants to organize the national community.
Of course, that is all done with the comparison is Obama. McCain.
McCain got into an elite academy because of the influence of his father, not by merit. And then proceeded to prove he didn't really belong there. Obama, with a solid foundation of values and natural talent decided to apply himself and excelled in the most competitive of schools.
Fast forward.
Obama writes his own books. McCain has his ghost written, OK "co-written" by his obviously talented staffer and speechwriter Mark Salter.
June 20, 2008 4:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yes, Barack could make a difference by registering people to vote in Chicago. That way he could win elections. That worked out well for him.
June 20, 2008 5:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hillary helped Bill get elected. He was just a student when they met. She hung around (doing research) until he graduated, they both moved to Arkansas, they taught law together, he failed in his first election for DA, got his AG position and then governor position - with her helping on his campaigns.
Hillary worked for Carter's campaign in Indiana (having worked on other national campaigns like McGovern's) and then got appointed to his charity board as a result and then did a great job helping grow a $300 million organization. Why is it hard to evaluate that just because her husband was *STATE ATTORNEY GENERAL* (before being governor), while managing a $400K/year organization with maximum 13 employees for 3 years wins Obama accolades? Isn't it obvious that she was doing serious stuff before she met Bill? Instead people say the only way a Yale law grad with Washington legal experience and a Fayetteville published professorship could get a job at Rose Law Firm was through her AG husband. How about we just say "Show us your tits" and be done with it?
June 20, 2008 5:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
Excuse me, the Carter appointment should have mentioned not only working on his Indiana campaign but that she had co-founded a similar organization in Arkansas - i.e. not just a political payoff, but work for which she had recent relevant management experience, not just her college experience and post-college attorney work on family issues.
June 20, 2008 5:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
I said it was hard to evaluate her experience, not that it was impossible. I am happy to admit she had lots of experience, and she is a smart, adept politician and policy advocate in her own right. I never said she did not deserve what role she had, nor that her accomplishments are tainted only that many of those roles were connected to the duties of her husband, (e.g. everything she did as first lady. So, for example, I find it impossible to evaluate what role she might have had in the Irish peace process, there were way too many other important official actors including the President involved)
That said, my main point was that they have a different kind of experience that helps explain their very different approach to representing themselves to the public and their model for governance. She was top down. He is bottom up. There is nothing objective about it. You are free to pick the one you think we need more.
June 21, 2008 1:11 AM | Reply | Permalink
Well.... At last. "Show us your tits." Des, if that's what it takes... to get your vote... I'm willing to take one for the team. Whaddya think?
Beyond me being an arse, of COURSE she had more AND better experience than Obama & was more "qualified" in legislative terms. Yes, she sacrificed herself to help make Bill President. No, the Clinton legacy should not be trashed. Yes, the media were shitty to her. Yes, she knows more policy than Obama.
But. (Yeah, yeah, you were waiting for it - my bad.) Experience & "official qualifications" gives us Nixon over JFK (and RFK, if that had happened.) Bush I over Bill. Hoover over FDR. And (almost certainly) MCCAIN over HRC.
But HRC - as she is today - chose to run as an insider. She has a big bold Brand Name, and she wasn't about to write over it. So all that early-Hillary stuff got backgrounded. And the fact that there were a batch of "radical" things in there was probably part of the reasoning. And she also chose a line-up of advisors & allies from the powers-that-be. I would have preferred a team of savage young hot-shot women lawyers/tech-heads, immigrants & outsiders - and tapped into who she was.
And it blew up. And she went searching, and found something that suited her better - but was perhaps too late. Or even, perhaps wasn't "her" either. (See: Whiskey-soaked in W Virginia.)
Which leaves us with.... now what? You know my views on what she could do. But what can HE do? As his own person?
So, I double dog dare ya. What would it take for Obama - as a candidate - to become human enough, leader enough, tough enough, compassionate enough, to be worth yer consideration? This is not begging, or persuading, or convincing - it's asking.
June 20, 2008 6:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think at this point we've pretty much established what everyone thinks in terms of Hillary's experience vs. Barack's experience. But the question before us now is really about Obama vs. McCains.
Of course, if we get Hillary on the ticket, we get the best of both worlds. (And yes, I'm going to keep plugging that till he announces who it is!)
June 20, 2008 7:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
Perhaps I should say it this way - American attitudes towards customers tends to be diametrically opposed to stereotypically smug obnoxious French waiters (I don't know any French waiters, so I can't confirm or judge) in that American businessmen generally treat customers with respect, provide convenience, and focus on features or issues that matter to the customer to make a sale and design marketing campaigns and products.
Under Rabbit's version, he presents "we've done everything we can do, if you think you can find it better somewhere else, go find it." No effort, no movement, no give. "Obama made his pitch for those who agree with him. The rest can now line up behind him or wade off. Je m'en fou." Très sympathique.
June 20, 2008 10:55 AM | Reply | Permalink
Customer service has its limits. Say you are in a fench restaurant and you really want fried squirrel, they might tell you "no" but you could go to Huchabees down the street and everyone would happier. You get your fired squirrel and the rest of us don't have to watch you eat it.
June 20, 2008 11:01 AM | Reply | Permalink
Yes, satisfying customer wants has its limits.
Now, would you assume that Hillary fans are trying to order an iguana paella with bouillabaisse sauce or simply a typical plate that fits fairly routine tastes but not quite what the chef is cooking?
June 20, 2008 11:13 AM | Reply | Permalink
Hillary supporters seem to want cheap gas, even at the expense of infrastructure repairs, and enviromental concerns. While at the same time they want a president that is going to tell Iran how it is going to be or the US will obliterate them.
In my mind they might as well be asking for fried squirrel as their big issues are about as appealing as chef Huckabees creation.
June 20, 2008 11:28 AM | Reply | Permalink
Maitre D'! Can we get another waiter? This one obviously doesn't speak English! We ordered turbot and he brought us escargot!!!
June 20, 2008 11:36 AM | Reply | Permalink
And treats us as if we ordered buffalo!
June 20, 2008 11:46 AM | Reply | Permalink
Why don't you just make this easier and at least do us the favor of ordering in a language we all feel comfortable with. Not with extended metaphor and allegory and obtuse cultural reference. Tell us what policy positions are most important to you, where you stand ideological on the scale of proposed ways to address those problems, and then tell us what your evaluation of the character, intellect, ability, whatever you think determines what kind of president the man will be and then we can have a conversation. And no, I don't want to go back and read all your previous posts up until now.
Or is this not even about you? Are you really looking to be convinced or are you just finding a new way to chastise Obama supporters. Are you looking for an actual dialog or are you just making fun of the collective incompetence of your fellow bloggers?
June 20, 2008 4:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
Turbot's English. Just may not seem like it.
June 20, 2008 4:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
I don't know what you can say to me. I didn't believe Obama'd get rid of politics as usual and the last 2 weeks makes that doubly obvious. I didn't buy into his personal history as anything that exciting (mostly he just grew up in Hawaii). I didn't find his experience and dedication to his causes close to as compelling as Hillary's. I don't find his command of the facts or thinking on his feet nearly as swift as Hillary. I didn't like how her explanation of the AUMF in her speech at the time was ignored and belittled and how serious security concerns were marginalized. I don't like how the Clinton Presidency has become the trash heap of all our grudges past and present. And I don't like how the party rallied around him for months telling her it was time for her to quit and by extension telling her supporters to shut the fuck up.
And aside from the "But McCain will be worse" argument I'm trying to summon some reason why I would want to vote for him. And his followers in general don't make it any easier.
June 20, 2008 5:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm with you on every point, Des. My additional beef is the incessant "reaching out to Republicans" language. I want Obama to say, Fuck the Republicans! We're running them out of town! So far he hasn't reached out to me that I've noticed. I got a letter from him that doesn't even say he's a Democrat. It says Obama for America. Creeped me out, actually.
Meanwhile, John McCain is reaching out to Democrats.
June 20, 2008 5:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
Some of us feel that saying "Fuck you, Republicans!" isn't the right approach to take. Much like "Fuck you, Hillary supporters!" would be upsetting to you, there are people on the other side of the aisle who flat out don't understand what's so bad about Republicans these days.
"Fuck you, Republicans!" is kind of contrary to Desidero's entire post, besides.
What good comes out of telling Republicans to fuck off? Contrast that with what good comes out of forcing them to compromise and extending a welcome if they decide they're fed up with Bush.
Surely you can appreciate the irony in responding to a post saying "And I don't like how the party rallied around him for months telling her it was time for her to quit and by extension telling her supporters to shut the fuck up." with "My additional beef is the incessant "reaching out to Republicans" language. I want Obama to say, Fuck the Republicans! We're running them out of town!"
June 20, 2008 6:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
Irony? Que?
Look. Can we at least get a FEW Republicans together, somewhere quiet, and just whale on em? (You know, verbally. Big decibels.) Maybe a half-dozen, from states where we're SURE we don't need their votes? Yeah, it'd be unfair, and they'd have kids, and be nice people deep down... but if I'm gonna make it through the Summer, I need to tell some Republicans to fuck off. Otherwise, I'm gonna blow a ..... (No way I'm finishing that one, Gasket.)
June 20, 2008 6:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
There's a big gap between being wrong and being evil. The Republican party is made up of folks from both ends of the spectrum. I trust you've got the judgment to know which ones to wallop. :)
June 20, 2008 6:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
Some Republicans should be run out of town, some should be accommodated. But I'll tell you, it's always felt to me like the Obama crowd was more into accommodating Republicans than divergent opinions of Democrats. The rush to list off names of Republicans who might serve as Vice President and other high positions bothers me as well. Is someone reading Broder ferchrissakes? If we win the election, we win it as Democrats and put in Democrats. If there are a few exceptions (William Cohen under Clinton), fine, but they can be a pain in the ass as well (Louis Freeh). Let's stick to the knitting. We can be magnanimous in action and deed, not in appointments. I don't recall the rush to appoint Democrats these last 8 years. Bipartisanship seems to always be important when Democrats gain power.
June 21, 2008 12:50 AM | Reply | Permalink
I agree that those looking for a unity ticket with a republican VP are barking up the wrong tree, for sure.
June 21, 2008 1:06 AM | Reply | Permalink
Don't say you forgot about Bob Matsui d-ca and W's transportation Secy. What could be more bi- than that???.
June 21, 2008 1:24 AM | Reply | Permalink
Look, demosaur, I've lived under Republican rule longer than you have, so fuck the fucking Republicans already. Time's up! I've had my fill!
No, sorry, it isn't "much like" it at all. You're gonna have to trust me on this: Some people are not your friends. Neocons, for example.
June 21, 2008 1:14 AM | Reply | Permalink
Not all Republicans are neocons, and those that aren't are put off by hostility. Everyone is put off by hostility. You see how it relates? Big tent. You can rage all you like -- there are a ton of causes worth the energy -- but you get more flies with honey. For real change, not just Obama change, more than a simple majority have got to be on board.
You're old enough to have lived under more 'Republican oppression' so I assume you're old enough to know the value of forgiveness and cordial relations. No, not all of them deserve it, but the broad-brushing has to stop.
June 21, 2008 1:49 AM | Reply | Permalink
Dear demosaur,
A. My cursing is for effect.
B. Today the House of Representatives, the People's House, threw the people under the bus. Some things should not be forgiven.
Today was a really bad day to be an American.
June 21, 2008 2:05 AM | Reply | Permalink
I'm willing to forego the cursing Gasket.... but van we PLEASE keep the hitting? I was looking forward to that part.
June 21, 2008 2:47 AM | Reply | Permalink
Yes We Can.
June 21, 2008 10:52 AM | Reply | Permalink
ok, THAT made me pee myself. kidney stone or not.
June 21, 2008 12:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
The vast majority of Sen Clinton's supporters have already made the move. A few of them just need a little more time to vent. Some of them have not engaged yet and will come arround after the convention. Obama is the most gifted politican of my lifetime. He will keep doing what he is doing and it will work for almost all of Sen Clinton's suppoorters. He will fail to earn the votes of her racist supporters (some of them in my own extended family) and some who just going with the familiar. He will make up for these hold outs (who will be fewer Democrats than a Democrat has lost in a generation) by beating McCain like a drum among independents and winning more crossover votes than anyone since Regan.
June 20, 2008 11:46 AM | Reply | Permalink
or simply a typical plate that fits fairly routine tastes but not quite what the chef is cooking?
"Not quite what the chef is cooking"? Do you imagine that Obama supporters like everything about Obama? Every position on every issue, every way he's handled problems that have come up, everything?
He's not a perfect candidate. He's a remarkably good candidate but in an ideal world someone more experienced (and capable of running a competent campaign) would be the nominee this year, and Obama would have his chance later. And in eight years he'd have been an even better candidate, in all likelihood.
But it's not an ideal world, and Obama saw an opening and took advantage of it very skillfully. He'll be a good president. I don't agree with everything he wants to do, and don't like the way he's handled a few things, and I expect that as he has to make compromises he'll make good ones, but compromises I'll sometimes be disappointed with. That's just the way the world works.
Wanting something that's "not quite what the chef is cooking" isn't a good reason to stomp out of the restaurant and go dumpster diving.
June 20, 2008 1:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thank you for this. Perhaps it will finally penetrate the bout of Obama Fever that Des can't shake. Earth to Des, just because you didn't draw the same conclusion as many of us did when looking at Barack's record, doesn't make you right.
Go to http://loc.thomas.gov and look at the lift things that Barack did while "writing a book and campaigning" all during his first few years. If he can pass substantive and landmark legislation AND write a best selling book AND run a game-changing campaign for president all at the same time, I would say he is a pretty competent applicant.
We have given you links to information that would convince any reasonable person beyond a shadow of a doubt. We can't give you any more evidence to support your somehow "reasonable requests" for a dish that doesn't exist. At some point, you need to get over it and shut up about your "doubts."
June 20, 2008 2:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
I never have to shut up about my doubts. I'm the customer and part owner in this restaurant. The cook is there at the diners' pleasure.
June 20, 2008 3:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
Then just be honest that you are here to torment us with your doubts and drop attitude that that is our problem to tend to.
Physician, heal thyself, or whatever. Feel free to do it as quietly or noisily as you want.
Only the management gets to reserve the right to refuse service...
June 20, 2008 4:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm going to submit that to Brainy Quote.
June 20, 2008 5:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
Too late, the chef already put it in the stew. Eat up.
June 21, 2008 12:54 AM | Reply | Permalink
I think your entire premise is mistaken. There is no large block of voters waiting to be sold on Obama. He is kicking ass in the polls for this point in the cycle. http://www.pollster.com/08-US-Pres-GE-MvO.php
The real danger is that McCain will crater so bad that he gets replaced by a more atractive candidate. some people pride themselves on weighing all the evidence and will claim to be undecided right up to the morning of the election. Obama will continue win them over and McCain will chase them off his lawn.
June 20, 2008 10:45 AM | Reply | Permalink
I their a more attractive republican out there?
June 20, 2008 10:47 AM | Reply | Permalink
Many Republicans think so. But most of the ones I am familiar with woudl do worse. The biggest danger is that they nominate some obscure uknown who gets to define him/herself in the short time between the convention and election before people figure out that they are a Republican JLB (Just Like Bush)
June 20, 2008 11:33 AM | Reply | Permalink
I guess I am at a loss her as to what you want. Obama has laid is positions out on the issues. He has spoken glowingly about Hillary, her campaign and her positive contribution to American politics.
So what is it you want him or us to give you as the potential customer?
June 20, 2008 11:06 AM | Reply | Permalink
Hey JS. I would expect we'll learn about 100 new things about Obama in the next 5 months. And we'll probably dislike somewhere between 8 to 88 of 'em. Partly because he's only going to have shown us part of his hand, a few of his speeches & ideas, knowing he had to present a particular aspect to win the primary.
But now... the pool isn't just 36 million voters. He's likely gonna need 60-80 million to win. And those next 24-44 million voters - for whatever reason - weren't turned on enough to vote in the primaries. (Yah, I know some of them have probably already made up their mind, firmly, but you know where I'm going.)
Personally, I kinda LIKE this next stage. We'll howl & argue if there's 8 things we dislike. If there's 88... some'll go all Seaton & run to McCain. But me? I think there'll be new openings, new juice, new language - and new people. Which means more weird hats, new ideas, new fun.
June 20, 2008 11:23 AM | Reply | Permalink
This I understand and absolutely agree. I speaking in terms of the here and now.
June 20, 2008 11:51 AM | Reply | Permalink
Des, I do wish more of the supporters viewed themselves as demanding customers rather than as movement members emulating a great leader, and the extent to which there is apostleship does sadden me. In this sense, I extend your argument not only to those to be convinced but also to those who already are.
June 20, 2008 11:09 AM | Reply | Permalink
Nicely put. Vintage absurdity.
June 20, 2008 11:22 AM | Reply | Permalink
Your name is well chosen. It is absurd to paint all or even most Obama supporters with this ridiculous definition.
June 20, 2008 2:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
Your name is well chosen. It is absurd to paint all or even most Obama supporters with this ridiculous definition.
June 20, 2008 2:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
Your name is well chosen. It is absurd to paint all or even most Obama supporters with this ridiculous definition.
June 20, 2008 2:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
This website sucks sometimes.
June 20, 2008 2:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
Nice absurdist moment, Jason.
Nice absurdist moment, Jason.
Nice absurdist moment, Jason.
I know. Shutting up now, as per request.
June 20, 2008 5:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
No over-arching generalizations intended lest I insult myself. Yet, I do know what I encounter in my limited confines.
June 20, 2008 6:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
Agreed. I would only add "timing." For voters beyond the world of activists & primary voters (only ~36 million in a nation of 300 million) patience & timing are key. Fall is harvest - not July.
Because many voters have still not emotionally or mentally moved to a place where they're ready. It's easy to say that 80% of Americans are dissatisfied with Bush & want "change." But remember, 80% (or so) were all for invading Iraq a few years back.... majorities wanted Reagan and/or Bush tax breaks... majorities bought SUV's and trucks. And many of these people are only as yet "dissatisfied" - they may not yet know what they want to do about it.
5 months is plenty of time. Obama will open up new issues & use new language. McCain will attack & float his own ideas. Each time this happens, another subset of voters will be engaged. They'll be ready to decide. The hammer-blows that worked for activists & primary voters aren't the same ones that will work with this wider group. Border Collies & Newfoundlanders are the right dogs for some, Beagles & Labs for others.
Hell, some poor bastards even like cats. I say, McCain can have that sorry lot.
June 20, 2008 11:09 AM | Reply | Permalink
Especially that catrabbit. That makes that French fried squirrel look tasty in comparison.
June 20, 2008 11:20 AM | Reply | Permalink
Des. To clarify. Is this meant as a critique of Obama's methods of convincing or his supporters? Perhaps I am reading it the wrong way.
June 20, 2008 11:19 AM | Reply | Permalink
Well for me, my choice is probably to hunker down in Papua New Guinea for the next 30 years or scavenge truffles near the arctic circle, but for the typical Democrat some convincing from supporters as surrogates might be more important than Obama himself just due to numbers.
June 20, 2008 11:41 AM | Reply | Permalink
Under Rabbit's version, he presents "we've done everything we can do, if you think you can find it better somewhere else, go find it." No effort, no movement, no give.
A better way to put it would be that I'm calling your bluff.
You're not going to get information here that you haven't seen before. You're extremely well informed. You've seen lots and lots of Obama supporters talk (here, if nowhere else) about what they like about Obama. Your decision doesn't hinge on finding out what Obama's position is on any particular issues. You don't have specific questions on which your decision might hinge. If you did you'd easily get answers.
You just seem to be trying to get Obama supporters to cajole you into voting for Obama. But I don't think that will really make any difference. You're much too smart to really let on-line comments determine how you vote.
So just get on with it. My guess is that you'll vote for Obama, reluctantly, in the end. But if I'm wrong, and you prefer McCain over Obama, or can't bring yourself to vote for either, then just embrace that.
June 20, 2008 11:35 AM | Reply | Permalink
So are you ready to surrender the whole undecided contingent as being like me? Are you going to figure anyone who's worth anything is going to line up without you lifting a paw? Steve Jobs is happy with 5% market share, but then he makes a nice profit on that niche so he can enjoy being elite. I'm not sure there's a 5% path to the presidency.
June 20, 2008 11:44 AM | Reply | Permalink
So are you ready to surrender the whole undecided contingent as being like me?
Of course not. Most of the undecided contingent don't know much about Obama at this point. A miniscule fraction of the undecided contingent read TPM, but Obama will be reaching out to the undecided contingent in ads, etc.
Maybe you're genuinely undecided. But unlike most undecideds, you're very well informed. The undecideds who are as well-informed as you, and who read TPM blog comments, might number in the low double digits. Not a one of them is undecided because they need more information about Obama. Most aren't really undecided at all, I suspect.
Are you going to figure anyone who's worth anything is going to line up without you lifting a paw?
Nothing posted in blogs and comments on TPM is going to have a measurable effect on the election. And only stupid people would have their votes determined by anonymous comments in blogs on the intertoobz.
You're not stupid. Nothing I or anyone else might post here is going to determine or significantly influence how you vote. Not really, anyway. If you need a rationalization for voting for McCain or Nader you might claim that your fragile ego was bruised too much by gloaty Obama supporters. But rationalizations are often just ways of masking the real reasons.
Steve Jobs is happy with 5% market share, but then he makes a nice profit on that niche so he can enjoy being elite. I'm not sure there's a 5% path to the presidency.
I'd be willing to bet that Obama will get more than 5% of the vote.
June 20, 2008 1:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
No, the customer is not always right. Some of them really are idiots. Not every customer is worth having.
June 20, 2008 11:44 AM | Reply | Permalink
Someone told Adlai Stevenson "Senator, every thinking American is with you", to which he replied, "Thank you, but I need a majority to win". He got his ass kicked twice by the Republican war hero, so I guess he was right.
June 20, 2008 11:58 AM | Reply | Permalink
Cow-tipper.
June 20, 2008 1:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
Should I tell my leper joke?
June 20, 2008 2:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
Dare ya.
June 20, 2008 2:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
Good thing you didn't double-dog dare me.
June 20, 2008 3:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
Wow, fun one I hadn't heard before, thanx...long before latte liberals, there was Adlai, nothing new under the sun....I s'pose lots of Roman politicos were latte liberals in a way....oh, the mind does start to wander....where exactly in Italy did latte originate?....and did some Roman Senators prefer Swedish chariots?....
June 20, 2008 3:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
So are you ready to surrender the whole undecided contingent as being like me?
You're undecided? REALLY? I thought you were smarter than that.
Here's a dime. Go buy some self-respect.
June 20, 2008 1:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
Keep it and buy yourself a new tooth.
June 20, 2008 2:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks. Got one. $2500 thanks to the lack of decent healthcare benefits, just the way your candidate likes it.
June 20, 2008 2:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think she was the one with universal health care.
June 20, 2008 3:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
What we've learned is that the customer does not always want universal health care for all.
June 20, 2008 5:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
Just point me to the aisle where I nee... I mean want to go.
June 20, 2008 5:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
I meant your NEW candidate. The one who lets his white hair show.
June 20, 2008 8:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
That's Billy, and he's taken to wearing a hat.
June 21, 2008 12:59 AM | Reply | Permalink
When I listened to Gore endorse Obama in Detroit, I wanted to kill myself. I understood clearly why he didn't get elected in a landslide.
Whether the customer is right or not right, the customer is king.
June 20, 2008 2:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
And when I'm the customer, I know I'm always right. :-)
June 20, 2008 3:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
Need clarification.
Was it Gore? The endorsement? Or Detroit? Personally, the endorsement would have sounded much better to me if it had taken place in, ohhhh, Antarctica. That would've been cooler. And Gore's stiffness much more understandable.
Also would like clarification on imagined methods of killing oneself. Buying GM stock, perhaps? Approaching Al and requesting lip-locking, soul-sucking kiss?
BTW, I love Al. Just out here cow-tippin' today..... ladeeda....
June 20, 2008 4:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
It was Gore's speech. I love him too, but he's so deadly boring.
I figured out it's because he speaks in a monotone. For inflection, he just gets louder. So during his endorsement, he killed his own best lines with his loudly monotonous delivery.
I could suddenly see how Bush was a huge contrast, even with the unbelievable mangling of words and grammar.
This is a superficial complaint, I realize, but I think it's like the difference between Kennedy and Nixon during the Great Debate. Gore is just a terrible public speaker in certain formats. "Massive rally" is one of those formats.
Hadn't gotten too creative about mode of suicide. I don't feel like leaving the house, so I was thinking head in the oven. But there's always jumping off the Verrazano-Narrows on a nice day. We're getting a cat soon, however, so I now have a reason to live.
June 20, 2008 5:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
Wait'll Ole Mangy actually arrives.... You'll be out here on the bridge with me.
Gore's film showed him at his best I think, as an Instructor. Serious. Earnest. Colorful charts & props to help lift him - literally - above the monotone. But like in the film, he's best at describing problems. Solutions? Not so good. Still, I give him half-points. As a VP, a Pres. candidate & a global warming guru. And with hardly anyone else scoring in double digits, that's high praise these days.
Which - since that is my present state of mind - I say again:
To The Bridge! Come! Come!
June 20, 2008 6:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
Gasket, you've pegged Gore. And why he 'lost' to Bush.
Bush, idiot that he is, was less boring. More charismatic, I guess. Funnier.
http://youtube.com/watch?v=QNAMIGRjbBg
Decent example.
This is precisely why I couldn't understand all that Give it to Gore at the convention talk that flared up a while back. Seaton still wants him.
June 20, 2008 9:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
Jesus. Watching these old videos of Bush is enough to make you retch.
http://youtube.com/watch?v=Vkk3mhk3N0I&feature=related
June 20, 2008 9:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
I for one enjoy your daily journeys of the spirit Desidero, please continue to take us on your forays into logic and metaphor. If they help you make your decision about the election, then all the better. Hopefully it will be by November though!
June 20, 2008 7:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks, Aztec one, you're the only lagomorph around here I seem to get along with - must be the peyote and jimson weed and mezcal and those great 4-day parties. Them North American Indians just gave us maize and buffalo burgers - pales in comparison.
June 21, 2008 12:58 AM | Reply | Permalink
Post a Comment