« previous | TPM CAFÉ READER POSTS HOME | next »
Failing to rewind
People are all like, "whaddya, whaddya?"
"David, are you endorsing John McCain?"
No, not really.
I thought that the best possible candidate for president this year was Al Gore.... and I still think so.
First, because I consider him the "President in Exile". He won and we were all robbed.
Gore was against the war in Iraq and probably he would have paid attention to the CIA report on Bin-Laden that Condi and Dubya ignored. Much of what has been bad in these eight years, including stiffing Kyoto and torturing prisoners, would surely have been avoided had Gore been installed in the White House in January 2001.
To top it off, Gore is now a Nobel Prize winner. He is universally recognized as a person of "vision" with real live, clearly stated, well known, credible, unflipfloppable positions on some of the most important issues of our time.
Electing him president this year would have been the closest thing to rewinding history I can think of and a true, unmistakable, message to the world of the repudiation of George W. Bush and all his works.
Al Gore shouldn't have had to even run for the nomination this year. He should have been drafted at the convention in an act of acclamation with everybody applauding everybody like the sort of thing that the Bulgarian Communist Party used to be famous for.
I understand that some people find Al Gore dull. To those people I suggest they buy a video game and press the buttons till they grow hair on their palms.
As to Barack Obama.
When the Democratic field was narrowed down to Hillary and Obama I had trouble believing how decadent it all was. A "dynastic wife", like Sonia Gandhi or Cristina Kirchner running against a fairy tale. The winner to run against a semi-crippled, septuagenarian of questionable temperament.
This in a country of 300,000,000 people, the richest, most powerful nation on earth, a country that thinks itself "a light unto the nations", a nation of fabled ice-cream.
This is not to deny Barack Obama's talent. Not since Ferdinand Waldo Demara has anyone gone farther with less reality to back him up.
If he had ever been the successful governor of an important state or even the mayor of a big town or done something difficult and dangerous in his short time in the Senate I could buy this. But no.
Who knows, Obama might have made a good Veep on Gore's ticket and after eight years in that office, he would have had an easy, natural shot at the presidency. As it is, if he loses this year simply because people don't want to vote for a "question mark", it is going to set back race relations in the USA by decades. There won't be a black person in America that will ever believe that Obama lost for any other reason than because he was black.
But, that is still no reason to put the atomic bomb in the hands of a "question mark".
So, no, I am not a big fan of McCain's, but he seems real to me.. "The last man left standing".
I don't think Dennis Kucinich is going to get elected in a write-in campaign, so I guess that leaves John McCain.
http://seaton-newslinks.blogspot.com/
Comments (96)
Now I read in the New York Times that while teaching at the University of Chicago:
Is a pattern emerging here?
July 30, 2008 2:26 AM | Reply | Permalink
And here McCain states that he graduated 5th from the BOTTOM of his class at Annapolis and is computer illiterate. Aren't you tired of having a dummy in the Oval office?
http://jp.youtube.com/watch?v=srbX26vp57c
July 31, 2008 1:55 AM | Reply | Permalink
Oh, so it bothers you that he actually taught while teaching at the University of Chicago, as opposed to many professors who leave the teaching to their grad assistants?
I read the article for which you provided a link; the author describes a professor much like one I have just had, who refused to be pinned down on his own views but who revealed some personality while teaching his material very effectively -- one, incidentally, for whom tenure was not the ultimate objective, but instead a [remote possibility and a] means to pursue his passion, the subject he was teaching.
"This is not to deny Barack Obama's talent. Not since Ferdinand Waldo Demara has anyone gone farther with less reality to back him up."
So you are comparing a US Senator with a career con man and professional imposter? Dude, I took your side after some pretty scurrilous ad hominem attacks on another topic thread, but your tack here on this thread makes me wonder why I bothered.
Look, you call Obama a "question mark." Well, vote for McCain and you'll get another question mark, for McCain has reversed himself on virtually every issue of importance in this election. What's his next reversal going to be? And you want to hand him power over our nuclear arsenal?
Vote for McCain and you'll get the President you deserve, but not the one I deserve, or that my children deserve. We deserve better. I don't know for sure that Obama can fill that role, but I'm damned sure that McCain can not.
July 30, 2008 3:11 AM | Reply | Permalink
Yes, the Demara bit is a little too much. I think David was just trying to get the part of the dabbler noted - Obama may have been a good classroom teacher, but nothing sounds terribly groundbreaking or stretching his racism/voting rights background, and nothing comes close to meriting people's attribution of a "Constitutional Scholar" to him. The article basically says he has no faculty experience in what we think of as faculty - instead, he taught courses with less faculty interaction than typical TA's have. Some have placed importance that it was U of Chicago, but he might as well have been teaching Memphis State - he wasn't part of the academic scene, whether you think that good or bad.
July 30, 2008 3:54 AM | Reply | Permalink
That's a misrepresentation of the article. I'm not sure where the misunderstanding comes from, but I can tell you that the NYT article represents a professor who was as deeply engaged in his classes as any of my colleagues at the Univ. of Illinois -- and more engaged than some of them.
It's clear that Obama didn't produce much research, in part because he had his eye on a political career.
But he had the responsibility for planning classes and defining the syllabus. That's not what TAs usually do. I don't understand the point of your reference to Memphis State; and to be honest, I don't think it much matters. Given the rigors of the academic job market, there are talented faculty at all kinds of institutions. The students at one institution may differ greatly from the students at another; the faculty tend to differ less. So it would be silly to make much of the "name" of his employer. But it's clear that Obama was a thoughtful and challenging professor, remembered warmly by his students. That's an accomplishment, wherever you do it.
July 30, 2008 9:04 AM | Reply | Permalink
Faculty means Faculty interacting with other faculty, scholarship, curriculum and scholastic development, getting down with other perfessurs. It says he wasn't there, he had 2 other jobs, he didn't take any philosophy out of U of C. He did his classes - he was a lecturer.
July 30, 2008 12:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
Actually, I thought the most informative thing was the way he got the job in the first place. What can you say? Obama is just Obama. We'll get through it and over it.
July 30, 2008 9:28 AM | Reply | Permalink
There's no need to mince words about this. Young African-American scholars are recruited very actively, because schools want to have a diverse faculty, and the competition is tight. The kind of recruiting that took place in Obama's case is not unusual. If you're the president of the Harvard Law Review, and you're African-American, you're going to be a hot property -- in part because the odds are that you're going to have an interesting career. May I point out that UChicago didn't pick too badly? "POTUS" is going to look okay on a curriculum vitae.
July 30, 2008 9:40 AM | Reply | Permalink
Well, Alex, how far back are you willing to push your narrative? I think you're on a slippery slope. Is there some accomplishment of Obama's that is just Obama's without regard to gender or race? We need to focus on that. Rove is not dead and he is very good at what he does.
July 30, 2008 9:47 AM | Reply | Permalink
Nah -- I'll concede the point. The way liberals think about race has its down side, and you're right -- one of the most important down sides is that it generates political resentment.
Some other day I would talk at more length about ways of addressing that problem. Personally, I think we should get rid of race-based affirmative action. The government doesn't have to be involved in the process anymore; e.g, no one had to push UChicago to hire Barack.
But I'm not going to get into that conversation today. Pragmatically and politically: you're right that this will be one of the problems that confronts Obama.
Can he handle it? Yes, I think he can.
July 30, 2008 10:11 AM | Reply | Permalink
So do I.
July 30, 2008 10:55 AM | Reply | Permalink
So we are all very sure we are all not very sure and when we are sure, we are sure sure that we don't like what we are sure about.
Somehow, I think you and I might find a synthesis.
July 30, 2008 5:27 AM | Reply | Permalink
I've been wondering what his salary was during that period - $60K from the Senate, $60K from teaching, along with whatever Michelle was pulling down, most likely $100K+. Maybe another round of student loan blues coming up...
July 30, 2008 3:20 AM | Reply | Permalink
Your argument for supporting McCain is disingenuous at best. For all the reasons that you offer in your claim of supporting Al Gore, McCain has been the exact opposite.
First, McCain failed to read the March 2003 NIE report, yet he argued for and voted for the invasion of Iraq. Second, McCain has supported "much of what has been bad in these eight years, including stiffing Kyoto and torturing prisoners."
And finally, McCain offers no "vision" for the country, no one has ever described him as "clearly stated", and his countless policy shifts in this campaign alone have surpassed any flip-flopping charge and entered into the realm of psychosis.
July 30, 2008 4:55 AM | Reply | Permalink
Yeah sure, McCain sucks. No argument.
The choice is between a questionable record and no record at all.
That is why I say, if I may be allowed to quote myself, "This in a country of 300,000,000 people, the richest, most powerful nation on earth, a country that thinks itself "a light unto the nations", a nation of fabled ice-cream."
Simply decadent.
July 30, 2008 5:23 AM | Reply | Permalink
I've lived long enough to be able to say that I and my family and friends have survived, and even prospered under, the very worst administrations in US history. We survived Nixon, Reagan and Bush. I have no doubt we'll survive McCain if it comes to that.
But, David, find the video of GHW Bush and McCain tottering across the tarmac in Houston together. Look at that old man shuffle they're doing. McCain already looks more like an ex-President than a candidate. I just don't see how you can think McCain could win.
July 30, 2008 7:29 AM | Reply | Permalink
All McCain has to do is win some swing states—which he is well on the way to doing.
Obama has to flip not one but several states—much harder.
July 30, 2008 9:49 AM | Reply | Permalink
Well, in the meantime, Obama has the new Democratic Party. On electoral-vote.com, he's up by 22 electoral votes with 51 of his votes coming from barely Dem states. Maybe this election is going to be a test of the 50 state strategy, and, even if it fails, position the Dems to win in 2012.
July 30, 2008 9:58 AM | Reply | Permalink
I looked at the electoral-vote.com map, and I think there's some serious erroneous polling going on. Indiana is as red as a state can be. So is Virginia. Colorado, Missouri, and Florida have strong Republican bases that will come through for McCain in the end. And if McCain chooses Romney, there's a good chance Michigan and New Hampshire will swing Republican. That's 92 electoral votes right there.
Here's another more cautious map.
July 30, 2008 5:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
McCain has to not only win *several* swing states, he also has to fight to hold GOP strongholds like Virginia and much of the northern Mountain time zone - not to mention his own home state of Arizona.
McCain's current attack posture is a copy-and-paste straight out of the Penn playbook - and as is becoming evident in today's MSM coverage, McCain will quickly find that he has a fairly low ceiling on just how negative he can go.
This is the part where Democrats should be thanking Howard Dean for the 50-state strategy. Obama's a big favorite in the general largely because a number of safe red states are in prime position to flip.
July 30, 2008 2:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
One thing the Republicans are very good at is unifying when they need to. Believe me, when Republicans really think about it, they are not going to let go of the White House and hand it over to the Democrats for 4 long years. Don't kid yourself. Republicans HATE Democrats worse than Democrats hate Republicans. They hate Dems fiscally, and they hate Dems on social issues. Virginia is McCain country all the way (military + good old boys = jackpot), and he'll hold Arizona with retirees alone. In terms of sheer numbers, there are about 100,000 more registered Republicans in Colorado than registered Democrats, so red-state numbers like that are serious obstacles.
July 30, 2008 4:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
Republicans are good at unifying - but it's because they usually have a solid conservative as a candidate, and an issue to rally around. John McCain does NOT excite the GOP base. And the war is so unpopular, even the Republican incumbents are getting away from it. And, as far as hatred, many *Republicans* hate Republican office-holders this year - that's part of what makes this so hard for McCain.
Virginia (with Kaine, Warner and Webb stumping) is anything but a lock, as is the case with Arizona (Janet Napolitano will be a big help there, and both states are considered toss-ups).
What states do you think McCain will flip? (Serious question, BTW.) NH is a possibility, but it's always going to be a toss-up anyway, so no one counts it. Besides, it's small, and even one WY/ND/SD-type state counters that. MI? Don't kid yourself. Detroit + Ann Arbor + Flint + Lansing/East Lansing are all Obama country. Romney on the ticket won't flip those cities for McCain - and as they go, so goes the state. I wouldn't be surprised if the vote in Detroit breaks 85% Obama given that the city is 82% A-A.
And, speaking of flipping, Ted Stevens was in a dogfight in AK *before* his indictment. Now? The GOP there is hoping he loses his primary race, as he surely won't be convicted before November. Couple him with Don Young, and the Republicans might actually have to *gasp* campaign there too. I'm not saying Obama will win AK, of course, but it's now close enough that he can put in some resources there and stretch McCain's $84M some more.
I think McCain is aiming to keep the Bush 2004 map (and there's plenty of evidence that won't happen, so he needs new ground). As for Colorado, that's another state ready to flip. Having the convention there will only help, provided everyone's on the same page coming in.
Finally, remember that this is not your typical election year. The two candidates are highly atypical, as is the political environment. As such, many normal assumptions about the voting public just don't hold this year.
July 30, 2008 10:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
Seaton exposes his illogical "reasoning" for all to see. Film at 11.
July 30, 2008 5:20 AM | Reply | Permalink
Since the primary campaign ended (I supported Sen. Clinton strongly), I've made a conscious and deliberate effort to sort of back-up and take stock ("re-boot", I guess, in modern vernacular). I STILL agree with the overall thrust of Mr. Seaton's point: Try as I might, I don't yet see much THERE, there, where Sen. (Emperor?) Obama is concerned. I fully realize that many, many others disagree - some almost violently so. I wish I could see it with you, but I just don't, at this point.
Oh, there's a fair chance I'll vote for him: McCain seems floundering and played-out, and it's hard to imagine any reasonable uncommitted person who would wish to continue any vestige of Republican control of our affairs. I'll just hope for the best, and do so without any great enthusiasm. I'll also share Mr. Seaton's dismay that this is the best we can do at an historic moment, in a talented nation of 300 million.
July 30, 2008 6:45 AM | Reply | Permalink
One_Wilson, may I call you One?
I think it is most important that the Democrats get veto overriding majorities in both houses. I think that would lead to a very exciting and creative period of progressive politics, as the Democratic base would force through very progressive legislation that McCain, if elected, couldn't veto.
However, Obama, if elected, and seeking reelection would not favor anything really liberal and the progressive energy that has built up under Bush-II would be dissipated harmlessly. The Democratic majorities would fudge the liberal agenda.
So I think with McCain as president facing huge Democratic majorities in Congress and the Senate would be better would be better for progressives than the same majorities with Obama stepping on the brakes.
July 30, 2008 7:06 AM | Reply | Permalink
It's not just having 60 Dems, it's being able to hold them in line. Democrats haven't been good at this - too many diverging causes in this umbrella of ours makes for a poor down-the-line loyalty. And I'm not sure how deep and long Obama's loyalty will be in the 2 houses. It wasn't Republicans that sank Health Care Reform in 1993, it was Congressional Democrats.
July 30, 2008 7:19 AM | Reply | Permalink
I was going to post about the health care debacle in response to this. It should be noted that Democrats had 57 Senate seats and something like 59% of the House in Clinton's first term - much like what an Obama first term would look like.
Democrats are much less likely to vote in a bloc than Republicans, so even if we get a filibuster-proof majority, it doesn't mean it won't split.
(60 seats is still highly unlikely; even my best projection still says 58-59 seats, depending on Alaska - and not counting Lieberman.)
July 30, 2008 1:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
Glad to see you back. I agree with you, I don't see much there, but in American politics you never do. Anything unique or different or eccentric about a politico has been whipped out of them by the process. This campaign has come down to who makes the least number of "gaffes" over the next 100 days, an expectation of perfection that is so oddly out of sync with reality that politics has become Kabuki - posturing, repetition of lines, gesture and stage setting.
July 30, 2008 11:05 AM | Reply | Permalink
The Nobel prize has become a European consolation prize for failed US politicians. They use it more as a slap in the face to the winners than as a real reward for real accomplishments for the losers.
July 30, 2008 7:24 AM | Reply | Permalink
Still the Nobel Prize is a universal seal of approval. Most American stuff is like the "world" series. If the idea was to repudiate Bush and all his works, nothing would send that message farther and faster than "reelecting" Al Gore.
July 30, 2008 8:10 AM | Reply | Permalink
News Flash:
Al Gore chose not to run in this election. Also, if you think he could have won this election, you are deluded by your distorted expat perspective. Despite support among many US progressives, Gore is generally perceived as yesterday's news (an also-ran) by the American electorate. From a liberal internationalist pipe-dream perspective Gore makes sense - and I personally find that dream very attractive - but in the real world it wasn't going to happen and it isn't going to happen. And, living in the real world, progressive voters who actually reside in the US find much to like in Obama and find McCain abhorrent.
July 30, 2008 8:38 AM | Reply | Permalink
It's more what the media would do with him - recycle long debunked smears and the like. Even when he got the Nobel they couldn't resist putting conservatives on the front page to give them equal (bullshit) time.
July 30, 2008 9:12 AM | Reply | Permalink
To be fair, Gore could probably have run - and won the nomination - this year.
However, I can't think of the last time a Democrat lost a general election and got a second bite at the apple.
Having said that, Gore not running this year more or less dashes Seaton's dream permanently. It's hard to imagine Gore having a better environment than 2008 to try it again.
July 30, 2008 2:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
Really? You think he might carry his home state of Tennessee this time? You're trying to drive forward looking in the rear-view mirror, David. Pass the torch. It's time for the Jonesers and younger to run America for a while. We need to step aside and let them take their shot.
July 30, 2008 9:24 AM | Reply | Permalink
Got a bit tangled up in your own rhetoric there, didn't you...
July 30, 2008 8:46 AM | Reply | Permalink
David -
No offense, but it's the same argument you mount every time you just wrap in different paper and put a new ribbon it. Experience, experience, experience.
McCain is stuck in Vietnam, he is till fighting that war. He has a neocon mind set and I seriously do not believe he has a grasp of the issues facing this country and the world. The man hasn't had a new idea in years and is not likely to stumble on one. (My opinion)
Is Obama a risk of the unknown, absof'inglutely. However, every new president is the risk of the unknown. We never know how a president is really going to lead until that president gets into office. However, what I have seen so far I like. I like his speeches because they inspire. And I think all great leaders must inspire first. I like the fact that he appears willing to listen to divergent ideas. I like the fact that he seems to be a foreign policy realist. I also like the fact that he is the smartest guy in the room. We will have had 8 years of a C student and I for one don't want another four years of another one. I am ready for someone smarter and younger than me as head of this country.
Now will all of the above make him a great president? You surmise he won't be, and you are guessing. I surmise he will be, but I am guessing, as well.
July 30, 2008 9:51 AM | Reply | Permalink
Foxy
I don't think that McCain is neocon, I think he is pandering to the neocons. A sailor, son and grandson of admirals of southern roots he easily be expected to be an antisemite.
McCain is not an evangelical, he is not Jewish and he grew up in the US Navy, not exactly a philosemitic outfit. It is impossible to be more goyish than John McCain (he is even an ardent reader of Hemingway and a boxing fan).
Sociologically he has much more in common with people like James Baker, Jimmy Carter and Mearsheimer and Walt, the bêtes noires of the neocons.
This is so obvious to most Jewish people that McCain must bend over backwards not to appear hostile to the AIPAC, this leads him to hang out with Joe Lieberman etc. I would imagine (and hope) that by background and breeding he is a closet "realist" like Admiral Fox Fallon and he is doing everything he can to cover his tracks. He cannot get elected with AIPAC against him.
July 30, 2008 11:35 AM | Reply | Permalink
Reycling your own.
I admire Al Gore plenty. I wish he had been president. But if he had, he could not be running now.
I'd have been very happy to vote for Hillary Clinton, Joe Biden, Chris Dodd, Dennis Kucinich, Al Gore or any of a large pool of talented and smart Democratic officeholders. But there is no way I will vote for any Republcan for a long time, if ever. They have lots to atone for. So forget trying to persuade me or anyone else here to take McCain seriously.
July 30, 2008 10:07 AM | Reply | Permalink
Tom,
If Al Gore had been president for the last eight years, it is hard to imagine that things would be as bad as they are today. Much of what has happened has its origin in a stolen election. That should not have been allowed to stand.
I find the choice, Hillary-Obama-McCain obscenely frivolous in a country of 300,000,000 of the richest and most creative people on earth.
July 30, 2008 11:12 AM | Reply | Permalink
One of the most debilitating myths of this century is that the Republicans stole an election from us. In fact, that comes down to James Baker stealing the election from us, because he's the guy who whipped Gore's minions during the Florida recount.
We're not victims, and I refuse to see us as victims. Gore lost his home state or he'd be President right now. I confidently predict that Obama will carry Illinois.
July 30, 2008 11:54 AM | Reply | Permalink
David, he wasn't president for the last eight years and trying to rewind history is a hopeless task. You can't change it, you can't right it, the only thing you can do is forgive it and move on.
July 30, 2008 1:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
Caminante, son tus huellas
el camino y nada más;
Caminante, no hay camino,
se hace camino al andar.
Al andar se hace el camino,
y al volver la vista atrás
se ve la senda que nunca
se ha de volver a pisar.
Wanderer, your footsteps are
the road, and nothing more;
wanderer, there is no road,
the road is made by walking.
By walking one makes the road,
and upon glancing behind
one sees the path
that never will be trod again.
Those are the famous bits from Machado's lament for the poet who dies far from his own country. I've recently channeled Antonio, and he says he'd update as follows:
Al Gore is not on the ballot this time around.
July 30, 2008 10:25 AM | Reply | Permalink
July 30, 2008 10:50 AM | Reply | Permalink
Oh please, if you're gonna bring up Tolle, you should've come back with this Machado gem:
Si es bueno vivir, todavía es mejor soñar, y lo mejor de todo, despertar.
Wake up!
July 30, 2008 11:10 AM | Reply | Permalink
Chino,
Antonio Machado was a fine poet and a great meta-physicist. I think he is a little heavyweight for this discussion, you might as well hit us with Rabindranath Tagore.
Now for a little "secret doctrine":
Of course Al Gore is not on the menu this year. Really I think he didn't run for the same reason that Bloomberg isn't running either.
The process of choosing POTUS has been so degraded that individuals of true merit are no longer willing to lower themselves to run. At bottom, THAT is the discussion I'm trying to provoke with my post.
It is almost inevitable that today's America be governed by hamburger.
July 30, 2008 11:50 AM | Reply | Permalink
Aha! Esoteric knowledge! I knew it!
July 30, 2008 11:56 AM | Reply | Permalink
Cool. I'd just as soon move this discussion over to more familiar territory for this wannabe brasileiro ... Forget Antonio Machado, let's talk Machado de Assis ... “Vida é luta. Vida sem luta é um mar morto no centro do organismo universal.”
Life is struggle. Life without struggle is a dead sea in the center of the universal organism.
Or, as Machado de Assis' great-grandson has spelled it out for us illiterates ...
“Rock and roll is the hambúrguer that ate the world.”
Vai embora, cara.
July 30, 2008 12:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
How about this: ¡Que pasotes, tan grandotes!
A little bit of blue crapspeak in Spanish en memoria del Cifro, eh? Brings us back to la gente común, i.e. esa audiencia febríl.
July 30, 2008 1:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
I, for one, have no idea what you're going on about. David and I were trying to discuss Amartya Sen, India, Tagore, the BRIC countries, cultural complexity, and why it is that India's rise should encourage us Yanks to pay more attention to all that Pres. Lula and Brazil are bringing to the table right here in our backyard, aka the Western Hemisphere.
I thought you were a progressive. For shame.
July 30, 2008 1:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
That's all I can stands, then I can't stands no more!
You people have complete permission to flog Al Gore, abuse poets, compare rock 'n roll to hamburger & generally conduct yer conversations in that babble-on way you ferrin folk do.
But AK Sen? Back yer arses up. Remove grimy paws. And apologize to the good man.
Manners. Bah.
July 30, 2008 1:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
All apologies, quinn ...
Paraphrasing the good man you're defending here, perhaps it is those societies that most embrace and live with complexity that most deserve to be held up as models for those of us struggling (or at least concerned) with creating a decent society in our hemisphere.
In other words, forget Europe (and our expats who've wandered over there). Look to Brazil. They're sorting out the same issues we are and, lately, doing so with much success.
July 30, 2008 2:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
You get the message?
July 30, 2008 2:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
Oh good, we're off the front page.
Billy, what gives? You've said some very rude things lately.
Being nice to meanspirited old farts is easy.
How about being nice to everyone else?
July 30, 2008 1:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
You have to look at the context.
July 30, 2008 2:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
Interesting. We may be moving to Brazil in a couple of years.
July 30, 2008 2:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
If that's true, let me know. All (your) nonsense here aside, you're more than welcome to check out:
http://www.mardeestrelas.com.br/
And ask for an introduction to the owner.
Brazil's grand.
July 30, 2008 3:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
LOL. Thanks.
July 30, 2008 3:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
A "pattern emerging" because he didn't publish? As a lecturer and not a tenure-track professor, it's neither expected nor usual for such academics to do original research.
I'm more intrigued by the pattern alluded to in this quote:
Obviously, the U of Chicago Law School was impressed enough by Obama to make him such a generous offer.
I'll go with a pattern like that, thank you!
July 30, 2008 10:43 AM | Reply | Permalink
I find that very fishy indeed.
I grew up in a University town in the Chicago area and our next door neighbors on both sides were full professors with tenure and believe me nobody, but nobody ever, ever got tenure without ever having published anything.
That is simply not professional.
Since Obama had never published anything and never attended the faculty meetings and discussions, what exactly did they base their generous offer on, one that included his wife in the package?
Chicago is very funny town, where a lot of very funny things happen to a lot of funny people and miraculous stories of this type abound. When the people involved are Chicagoland politicians the chances of such a miracle occurring rise sharply. It could be said that a Chicago politician's life is assembled from such miracles.
July 30, 2008 11:03 AM | Reply | Permalink
What I find miraculous is how all of his opponents manage to "self destruct." Somebody up there likes him.
July 30, 2008 11:40 AM | Reply | Permalink
Billy,
Yeah "up there" or "down there", there are so many "happy coincidences" in his career that if I believed in John the Revelator's delirium, which I don't, I would tend to think the Obama was "slouching toward Bethlehem to be born".
A more prosaic explanation would be that America's answer to Old Nick, the Daley machine, knew a likely lad when they saw one and arranged things, as is their want. The Daleys are finally going to control the White House. I'm sure that they have strings tied to very tender parts of The One's anatomy and wont be shy about pulling them. Prepare the way for the Lord!
July 30, 2008 12:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
The Lord works in mysterious ways, as many a gumshoe has found out. But don't forget, it's Hillary's fault that Wright was Obama's minister. I'm reading Childhood's End for some reason, and the idea of both Karellen's mirrors as phantasmagoria and his sly sinister whispering continuously in someone's ear as his delicate use of force come to mind.
And sometimes people just decide to go fishing or spend more time with their families. Who can blame them?
July 30, 2008 1:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
When you get to the long dance, think of the Obamanauts. I do.
July 30, 2008 2:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
It's revealing that you only focus upon the parts of the article with opinions from people who didn't know Obama well while ignoring the parts with opinions from the people who did know him well -- his students. Since you obviously missed it, here's a key quote:
Or does his being a great teacher just count as a "miracle" to you, or perhaps one of your "happy coincidences"? Is it not perhaps conceivable in your prejudiced, distorted view of things that the university wanted to give tenure to just such a great teacher?
David, you spend so much energy fabricating this notion -- despite ample evidence -- that Obama's rise has resulted from no real accomplishment of his own, but rather because of some racial quota or behind-the-scene manipulations, when the more interesting question is why McCain, with all the greasing of wheels that his admiral father and grandfather did for him, just squeaked by at the Academy, crashed five military aircraft, and failed to make admiral.
It's one thing, being given opportunity and making something out of it (as in Obama's case), and another, having such advantages and squandering them (as in McCain's).
July 30, 2008 1:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
Good points... however,
It appears that McCain was going to get his admiral's star when his mentor John Tower convinced him to switch into politics.
And sorry, but as interesting as Obama might appear, he doesn't have anything like a record of accomplishment that a presidential candidate is expected to have. Never a successful business man or a general or a mayor or a governor or a particularly interesting senator or even a leader of opinion... it is all so strange. I can only think that people are under the influence of some strange mass hysteria.
July 30, 2008 1:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
According to the NYT, that is. You obviously haven't read what Jeffrey Klein had to say about that. It's worth a look:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jeffrey-klein/mccains-secret-questionab_b_107409.html
July 30, 2008 1:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think there is no doubt that McCain could have made one star Admiral, but it is doubtful that he could have ever made "four star" admiral like his father and grandfather, leaving his personal ability or lack of it our of it, he had lost a lot of time in Hanoi, things had moved on without him. There was a hole in his career.
July 30, 2008 1:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
Based upon what exactly?
July 30, 2008 2:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
The Navy is a very aristocratic institution and John McCain is the son and grandson of great admirals, his grandfather was an historic admiral.
Among fighting clans, blood is supposed to tell.
He was wild and temperamental.
The American military caste are generally Scotch-Irish southerners and hot blood and a wild streak and a touchy 16th century cavalier sense of personal honor are all part of that mix. Besides being Scotch-Irish McCain was a "fighter jock". Hot stuff. A bull terrier.
None of the stuff Klein mentions would have mattered very much among other members of his caste.
His youthful wildness would never have been held against him in this culture. Especially when he showed his grit in prison.
Simply he was out of action for too long.
Other people had moved up the ladder while he was gone.
July 30, 2008 2:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
According to this explanation of military promotion policies, just 2-3% of Navy captains make rear admiral: http://usmilitary.about.com/od/navypromotions/l/blofficerprom.htm
But either way, you seem to be arguing FOR McCain for the very same points with which you criticize Obama. On the one hand, you proclaim McCain's qualifications for the presidency based upon his "success" as a military man while at the same time deriding that attainment as being just a result of his "hot blood."
Being black may have helped get Obama into Harvard Law School, but it's doubtful that he got the editorship of the Harvard Law Review because of it, and it certainly didn't achieve magna cum laude for him.
July 30, 2008 2:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
The sad thing about Barack Obama is that his color is just a disguise. I'm positive he could have done just as brilliantly at school if his father had not been a Kenyan exchange student, however if he had had pinkish gray skin like his mother and grandparents, I'm not sure he would have been tempted to get into politics, he saw that it gave him that extra advantage. He has judge America brilliantly.
July 30, 2008 2:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
That's some sick shit you're lettin' loose with here, David.
July 30, 2008 3:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think culture is much more important than skin color and rather like Jewish people do, I believe that we belong to our mother's "tribe". That is why I say that Barack Obama's color is a disguise. And even from an African view point African-American's African blood comes from West Africa and Kenya is in East Africa.
July 30, 2008 3:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
David, if you can see that culture is more important than skin color, why can't you see that the rest of us, including Obama, see that, too? There is nothing in it for Obama to have dark skin. No advantage. Hopefully, no disadvantage, but certainly no advantage. If culture is the important thing, why not talk about culture?
July 30, 2008 3:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
Of course there are advantages and there are disadvantages. Race colors everything Americans do and say. The United States is obsessed by race and always has been. This is tragic.
July 30, 2008 3:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
"Race colors everything Americans do and say. The United States is obsessed by race and always has been."
David, your posting indicates that you are simply out of touch with the younger America that is beginning to come into full adulthood. With each succeeding generation, race matters less and less. Granted, there will be lingering pockets of racist attitude, but I think you still think the nation is the America of your youth.
And by the way, you can have friends of differing colors and ethnic origins and still be a bigot.
It's time for us old farts, especially the "naval grazing" boomers, to get the f*ck out of the way and let the young ones have at it.
July 30, 2008 5:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
All of us older than Jonesers need to take a break. Pass on the power and the wealth while they can do something with it.
July 30, 2008 5:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
Not you of course, father. You having taken a vow of poverty and all.
July 30, 2008 5:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks for the special dispensation. I hope to pass something of value on to my kids - you don't think I'm "Father" because I took a vow of celibacy, didja?
July 30, 2008 6:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
But, as a relatively old fart myself (I'm 40), I sincerely hope you'd take this advice to heart:
Nobody that matters cares about the color of Obama's skin.
Michelle was not wearing any discernible disguise the night in Iowa when I got onboard because she was the first national figure I'd heard speak plainly about how bogus the appeals to fear have been these past few years.
To my mind, her initial speeches will ever remain simply what they were as I heard them: wake-up calls. Fuck fear.
Your concern with Barack's skin tone reminds me of some of the challenges we face in the battle I'm mostly occupied with: Prop 8 in California. 'Gay' is a non-issue to those who are gonna matter 10 years from now in all this. The kids don't care. God Bless America, they're beyond it all. As we all should be - but we're not - and so we spend our time coming up with language that might hopefully move those unable to reference a reality in which having gay friends is the norm and no big deal.
But, in any case, we're clear about who the bigots are. Between your posts and comments, I'd say you fit that bill as well. You are a bigot. Plain and simple. Where it goes from here is up to you.
July 30, 2008 3:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm not a bigot, I spent my teens hanging out with Cubans and Venezuelans of color without any problems, but I recognize that cultural barriers are hard to breach. History is a bitch.
Skin color itself is not really the problem, it is the history that goes with it.
I see America a little like a huge Bosnia, Bosnia is a place where people who speak the same language and look alike are given to killing each other for historical reasons. In America color has coded what religious origins means in Bosnia or in Northern Ireland, for that matter. You may think that you can wave a magic wand and make that all go a way. I hope you are right, but I don't think so.
I don't think sexual orientation has much to do with race politics, other than we are against marginalization and exclusion for any reason.
Again it is a cultural and a social class thing. Poor whites and poor blacks might tend to be homophobes and middle class whites and blacks not.
A question of education. Until only a few years ago the hard left was very homophobe and the right much less so.
There is only one thing you said that I object to.
Substitute any word you want for the word 'Gay' and I disagree, simply because if life has taught me anything is that none of us a clue about what will happen in 10 years. California may have dropped into the Pacific by then. Whenever you are tempted ot say something like that knock on wood and spit over your shoulder is my advice.
July 30, 2008 3:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
Somehow this discussion is getting narrower and narrower (literally).
I'm gone to shove in a couple of tags and see if I can fix it.
July 30, 2008 4:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
There's absolutley no way Chicago elevates him from adjunct lecturer to tenured faculty without any published scholarship, just because he's a popular teacher. This offer was obviously based on race.
July 30, 2008 4:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
It's clear Obama was offered tenure because of his race.
July 30, 2008 4:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
David. Thank you for answering my questions in the other thread. No time right now for further comment, but I wanted to acknowledge you and appreciate your search for meaning. These are difficult times, and we have great challenges ahead.
IMO: That we see things differently is in so many ways a positive. That we work together to make the changes we must is a necessity.
July 30, 2008 1:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thank you!
All the best.
July 30, 2008 1:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
You make a good point David, but (and forgive me if this has been brought up before) McCain is the freakin' WORST excuse for a presidential candidate that I have ever, ever seen - he is pathetic. Hasn't he run for POTUS before? How could so much 'experience' run such a disorganized mess of a campaign? I cannot even imagine anyone hiring him as a cashier in your average QuickyMart. Dude! I'll take my chances on the question mark, thank you...
And how did Mr '20+ years of experience' end up dancing to his neophite rival's tune in foreign policy? It took just 8 days for Obama to make McCain's 'decades of FP experience' look just plain pathetic - 8 days! McCain's been faking the funk for years - we see it more and more everyday...Question mark, please...
And tell me: What his McCain actually done of any significance? Oh yeah, the Keating5 thingy. He and his K5 pals and his-campaign-co-chair-economic-advisor-butt-boy Phil (Enron Loophole) Grahamm collectively have screwed taxpayers, retirees, pensioners, workers, consumers and the entire state of California to the tune of how many billions and billions of dollars? Cheez n' Rice! What are you - a masochist? He's a braindead, thieving, lying f*ckup who surrounds himself with crooks - look at whose advising and running his campaign! Neocons and lobbyists! HA! I'll take my chances (again) with the question mark.
McCain promises to continue Bush's regressive tax structure and push (with Grahamm at his side) for further deregulation of the financial sector. We know that these types of policies not only don't work (for 99% of Americans) but are also destructive to the economy and our nation as a whole. We have years of direct experience that shows where these types of policies lead us...Yet still McCain continues down that track. And no one questions his patriotism??? Once again, I(say it with me)will take the question mark anyday...
And, you gotta love how McCain supports the troops. Any bill to potentially benefit them, he attempts to shoot down. His way of supporting the troops is to send them into one reckless, poorly planned, asinine, endless fight after another. He speaks of achieving an honorable victory against a nation that has never, ever lifted a finger against us! An honorable victory against a poor, nation that had nothing to do with 9/11, with little or no military that had been strangled by economic sanctions for better than a decade...Is that or is that not as morally and ethically bankrupt as you can get. Again (and as a veteran and human being with a conscience) I'll takes me chances with a question mark - or a giant chicken or a frog's ass!
McCain's not the last man standing; that shitbird's a fraud...
July 30, 2008 3:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
I gather that the Hemingwayesque charm of John McCain leaves you rather cold.
I agree with you about the criminality of invading Iraq. They never did us any harm, but then neither did Panama or Grenada or Vietnam for that matter. This is just something we do periodically, that is what America does and that is what America is, although for some reason Americans like to think of themselves as very nice people. That is another anthropological curiosity like the Ubangi putting plates in their lips.
"Victory" with "Honor" in this case would be a nice big airbase and some juicy oil contracts. McCain is right on this one "victory" like that is doable and if it isn't done the Chinese and the Russian and most of the Arabs are going to laugh themselves sick at our expense, because they don't think we are as nice as we think we are.
July 30, 2008 4:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
What I like about us is we helped the Taliban kick the Russian's asses, then we helped the Northern warlords kick the Taliban's assess. When there are no foreign asses to kick, we kick our own. We're a kickass nation.
July 30, 2008 4:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
Dave, come on! You have the choice between the past and the future, between intelligence and reflex, between hope and rigidity, and you are deliberately making the wrong choice? Get real! Is this just a case of identification with an old white man or what?
July 30, 2008 6:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
F ck David Seaton.
July 30, 2008 9:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
So you're voting for McCain? Irony indeed.
Of course, Gore is very impressive, which is why I think it's significant when Gore says,
and
When endorsing Obama in Detroit, Gore also said,
and
and
And the prospect of putting the atomic bomb in the hands of someone who continually refers to defunct countries, confuses Sunni & Shia, talks about an Iraq-Pakistan border and how the Surge preceded the Anbar Awakening, and whose strong suit is said to be Foreign Policy/National Security -- well, to put it mildly, I don't find that prospect terribly comforting.
July 30, 2008 10:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
Seaton is an old man that just keeps soiling himself purposely just to get strokes.
He figues the more trash he regurgitates, the greater the stench from the gall.
Thus the manipulation for someone to "change him".
His motto?
I a chié donc je suis
July 30, 2008 10:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
What a pity, this was a very interesting discussion until you started in.
Here, I'll feed you, in the hopes that no one else will be tempted:
-wwstaebler, Talking Points Memo Reader Post, July 29, 2008: No More Ad Feminam-Proverbs 11:12
-Proverbs 17:28
-Abraham Lincoln
-Plato
-Wikipedia
July 31, 2008 1:15 AM | Reply | Permalink
Y'know, David... I was originally amongst your defenders here. However, your persistence in posting strictly anti-Obama screeds has really got me wondering just where you're coming from.
And, frankly, I'm leaning more and more towards racism as being at your crux. Not surprisingly, given your demographic & all. Would be nice were you to just look into the mirror as to cop to it, is all.
Saddens me, as I've been to Spain, and hold fond memories of my times there.
July 30, 2008 10:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
It's useless in the Obama thing to say you aren't a racist if you oppose him. That of course is part of his disguise.
My gripe with him is that I think that he is a megalomaniac fake and a cosmic chutzpotch, who is close to getting his hands on the most powerful job in the world without ever having done anything of real importance.
The color of his skin is what I like best about him... by far.
July 31, 2008 5:18 AM | Reply | Permalink
Post a Comment