Of all the ills (economic, psychic, political...) Obama mentioned as facing this country, and of all the mis-steps (careless government, greed, complacency), and all the failures (of diplomacy, of civil rights in the face of war...) he mentioned--are there any that can't be placed squarely at the feet of the Bush administration?  The speech was delivered with reference to periods of world-historical crisis--the American Revolution and birth of democracy, slavery and the Civil War, the New Deal and WWII--but isn't it the case that everything we face now has been, essentially, self-inflicted, avoidable, predictable--and the making of Obama's predecessor?  It's a remarkable moment for that fact alone.

Times half-wit Thomas Friedman takes the horse race mentality to a new low today, in case you didn't catch it.  Obama, whom he acknowledges to have the better policies, is supposed to bow and scrape to the public that Friedman so obviously holds in contempt or he doesn't deserve to win. McCain-Palin, on the other hand are lauded for pulling off their rancid and substance-free campaign.  So much for the media holding politicians to a standard. Here's the Obama diagnosis:

Obama early on, and particularly with young people, connected on a gut level like no other politician since Ronald Reagan. But in recent weeks, I feel as though he has lost that gut connection. I thought his convention speech contained no memorable lines or uplifting visions. It never got me out of my seat. ....Who is bailing out Fannie Mae? Who is going to build a new energy system? Health care? More tax cuts are not going to do it. But I am just not sure that Obama is making the sale that he has the plan and passion to unite and mobilize the country for this task.In a way, I would love to hear Obama say, just for shock value: “I am so eager to do whatever it takes to fix these problems that I am ready to be a one-term president.

So Obama, for the privilege of enacting sensible policy needs to make a gimmicky and self-defeating pledge. Then he might deserve a shot. Why stoop to this?  Because you, reader, are stupid:

I am a big believer that voters don’t listen through their ears. They listen through their stomachs. If you as a politician connect with voters on a gut level, they will follow you anywhere and not fret about the details.

One could imagine a decent plea for Obama to come out fighting more, but this isn't it. This is an overt abdication of the media's responsibility to test and point out the sounder plan, exclusive of image or empty sound bite. Let's consider the opposite situation. Suppose we had a poiticain running on lies and non-policy. Surely we'd point out that s/he doesn't actaully deserve to win, right? Surely there would be some critique of that failure to deliver any substance?  Nope:

I don’t know how long or high the “Sarah Palin bounce” will go, but I would take her very seriously as a politician. She may not know nuclear deterrence theory, but she can deliver a line. “I think there are a lot of women out there that look at her, holding her baby, talking about being a hockey mom, and say, ‘She knows what I feel; she’s going through what I am going through,’ ” remarked leadership expert John Maxwell.
...
How, you ask, can two people running with the exact same policies as the party that has been in power for eight years, claim to be the agents of “change?” That’s politics. There’s no shame.

No, no shame. It's so sad that there isn't some entity with columnists with research staffs and  the ability to reach huge numbers of people, that might actually point to serious differences and help people make an informed decision. If only it worked that way.  But since there isn't, let's applaud the sound instincts McCain has, and get Obama to beg for it.

Times half-wit Thomas Friedman takes the horse race mentality to a new low today, in case you didn't catch it.  Obama, whom he acknowledges to have the better policies, is supposed to bow and scrape to the public that Friedman so obviously holds in contempt or he doesn't deserve to win. McCain-Palin, on the other hand are lauded for pulling off their rancid and substance-free campaign.  So much for the media holding politicians to a standard. Here's the Obama diagnosis:

Obama early on, and particularly with young people, connected on a gut level like no other politician since Ronald Reagan. But in recent weeks, I feel as though he has lost that gut connection. I thought his convention speech contained no memorable lines or uplifting visions. It never got me out of my seat. ....Who is bailing out Fannie Mae? Who is going to build a new energy system? Health care? More tax cuts are not going to do it. But I am just not sure that Obama is making the sale that he has the plan and passion to unite and mobilize the country for this task.In a way, I would love to hear Obama say, just for shock value: “I am so eager to do whatever it takes to fix these problems that I am ready to be a one-term president.

So Obama, for the privilege of enacting sensible policy needs to make a gimmicky and self-defeating pledge. Then he might deserve a shot. Why stoop to this?  Because you, reader, are stupid:

I am a big believer that voters don’t listen through their ears. They listen through their stomachs. If you as a politician connect with voters on a gut level, they will follow you anywhere and not fret about the details.

One could imagine a decent plea for Obama to come out fighting more, but this isn't it. This is an overt abdication of the media's responsibility to test and point out the sounder plan, exclusive of image or empty sound bite. Let's consider the opposite situation. Suppose we had a poiticain running on lies and non-policy. Surely we'd point out that s/he doesn't actaully deserve to win, right? Surely there would be some critique of that failure to deliver any substance?  Nope:

I don’t know how long or high the “Sarah Palin bounce” will go, but I would take her very seriously as a politician. She may not know nuclear deterrence theory, but she can deliver a line. “I think there are a lot of women out there that look at her, holding her baby, talking about being a hockey mom, and say, ‘She knows what I feel; she’s going through what I am going through,’ ” remarked leadership expert John Maxwell.
...
How, you ask, can two people running with the exact same policies as the party that has been in power for eight years, claim to be the agents of “change?” That’s politics. There’s no shame.

No, no shame. It's so sad that there isn't some entity, idependant of the government, with the ability to reach huge numbers of people, that might actually point to serious differences and help people make an informed decision. If only it worked that way.  But since there isn't, let's applaud the sound instincts McCain has, and get Obama to beg for it.

Times half-wit Thomas Friedman takes the horse race mentality to a new low today, in case you didn't catch it.  Obama, whom he acknowledges to have the better policies, is supposed to bow and scrape to the public that Friedman so obviously holds in contempt or he doesn't deserve to win. McCain-Palin, on the other hand are lauded for pulling off their rancid and substance-free campaign.  So much for the media holding politicians to a standard. Here's the Obama diagnosis:

Obama early on, and particularly with young people, connected on a gut level like no other politician since Ronald Reagan. But in recent weeks, I feel as though he has lost that gut connection. I thought his convention speech contained no memorable lines or uplifting visions. It never got me out of my seat. ....Who is bailing out Fannie Mae? Who is going to build a new energy system? Health care? More tax cuts are not going to do it. But I am just not sure that Obama is making the sale that he has the plan and passion to unite and mobilize the country for this task.In a way, I would love to hear Obama say, just for shock value: “I am so eager to do whatever it takes to fix these problems that I am ready to be a one-term president.

So Obama, for the privilege of enacting sensible policy needs to make a gimmicky and self-defeating pledge. Then he might deserve a shot. Why stoop to this?  Because you, reader, are stupid:

I am a big believer that voters don’t listen through their ears. They listen through their stomachs. If you as a politician connect with voters on a gut level, they will follow you anywhere and not fret about the details.

One could imagine a decent plea for Obama to come out fighting more, but this isn't it. This is an overt abdication of the media's responsibility to test and point out the sounder plan, exclusive of image or empty sound bite. Let's consider the opposite situation. Suppose we had a poiticain running on lies and non-policy. Surely we'd point out that s/he doesn't actaully deserve to win, right? Surely there would be some critique of that failure to deliver any substance?  Nope:

I don’t know how long or high the “Sarah Palin bounce” will go, but I would take her very seriously as a politician. She may not know nuclear deterrence theory, but she can deliver a line. “I think there are a lot of women out there that look at her, holding her baby, talking about being a hockey mom, and say, ‘She knows what I feel; she’s going through what I am going through,’ ” remarked leadership expert John Maxwell.
...
How, you ask, can two people running with the exact same policies as the party that has been in power for eight years, claim to be the agents of “change?” That’s politics. There’s no shame.

No, no shame. It's so sad that there isn't some entity, idependant of the government, with the ability to reach huge numbers of people, that might actually point to serious differences and help people make an informed decision. If only it worked that way.  But since there isn't, let's applaud the sound instincts McCain has, and get Obama to beg for it.

Times half-wit Thomas Friedman takes the horse race mentality to a new low today, in case you didn't catch it.  Obama, whom he acknowledges to have the better policies, is supposed to bow and scrape to the public that Friedman so obviously holds in contempt or he doesn't deserve to win. McCain-Palin, on the other hand are lauded for pulling off their rancid and substance-free campaign.  So much for the media holding politicians to a standard. Here's the Obama diagnosis:

Obama early on, and particularly with young people, connected on a gut level like no other politician since Ronald Reagan. But in recent weeks, I feel as though he has lost that gut connection. I thought his convention speech contained no memorable lines or uplifting visions. It never got me out of my seat. ....Who is bailing out Fannie Mae? Who is going to build a new energy system? Health care? More tax cuts are not going to do it. But I am just not sure that Obama is making the sale that he has the plan and passion to unite and mobilize the country for this task.In a way, I would love to hear Obama say, just for shock value: “I am so eager to do whatever it takes to fix these problems that I am ready to be a one-term president.

So Obama, for the privilege of enacting sensible policy needs to make a gimmicky and self-defeating pledge. Then he might deserve a shot. Why stoop to this?  Because you, reader, are stupid:

I am a big believer that voters don’t listen through their ears. They listen through their stomachs. If you as a politician connect with voters on a gut level, they will follow you anywhere and not fret about the details.

One could imagine a decent plea for Obama to come out fighting more, but this isn't it. This is an overt abdication of the media's responsibility to test and point out the sounder plan, exclusive of image or empty sound bite. Let's consider the opposite situation. Suppose we had a poiticain running on lies and non-policy. Surely we'd point out that s/he doesn't actaully deserve to win, right? Surely there would be some critique of that failure to deliver any substance?  Nope:

I don’t know how long or high the “Sarah Palin bounce” will go, but I would take her very seriously as a politician. She may not know nuclear deterrence theory, but she can deliver a line. “I think there are a lot of women out there that look at her, holding her baby, talking about being a hockey mom, and say, ‘She knows what I feel; she’s going through what I am going through,’ ” remarked leadership expert John Maxwell.
...
How, you ask, can two people running with the exact same policies as the party that has been in power for eight years, claim to be the agents of “change?” That’s politics. There’s no shame.

No, no shame. It's so sad that there isn't some entity, idependant of the government, with the ability to reach huge numbers of people, that might actually point to serious differences and help people make an informed decision. If only it worked that way.  But since there isn't, let's applaud the sound instincts McCain has, and get Obama to beg for it.