LITTWIN: In a way, it was Obama's greatest hits
By Mike Littwin, Rocky Mountain News (Contact)
Published October 30, 2008 at 12:05 a.m.
It was, after all, an infomercial, even if an infomercial like none you'd ever seen before.
Meaning that, in the end, no one was asking you to buy Time-Life's Greatest Hits of the '70s, Volume 7 (including, for an additional $19.99, a look back at the Carpenters, the Early Years).
For 30 minutes, in prime time, on virtually every network except the Golf Channel, Barack Obama was simply selling Barack Obama.
The maddening thing for John McCain has to be how easy the sale is starting to look - see: RealClearPolitics.com list of polls to get an idea of just how easy - and how the momentum keeps going Obama's way.
This was big money - the money McCain doesn't have, the money Obama raises after refusing to take matching campaign funds. He had money to spend on 30 minutes designed to do just one thing - to assure the doubters that he looked the part of being president. And so, he would look presidential talking about the economy. And he would look presidential talking about health care. And he would look presidential telling the stories of ordinary, middle-class American citizens from, yes, many of your American swing states.
And he looked presidential when the wheat - I swear, the infomercial opened with acres and acres of wheat - was doing what wheat does, waving over those oh-so-golden plains.
This was 30 minutes of high-class production values, which told you little that you didn't know before but which offered you 30 minutes of feeling comfortable watching Obama from your living room, 30 minutes of campaign speech and autobiography and touching photos with his kids and with his mom.
And those 30 minutes were just the beginning. He was on later Wednesday night with Jon Stewart. And as I write this, a big crowd is forming in Kissimmee, Fla., where Obama and Bill Clinton, together at last, will pretend that they like each other. There's your real World Series of politics.
The infomercial was much lower key. It was all very soft lighting and very soft sell. There was not a negative note, except about the tough times coming to you courtesy of the last eight years.
If the film looked expensive, it was expensive - costing $4 million just to broadcast it and probably as much for the very American soundtrack. This wasn't Ross Perot with his flow charts. This was what America does best - selling you the indispensable product, and then cutting to a live shot before a cheering crowd in Florida.
Some people were worried about Obama overkill, as if Americans weren't equipped with remote control. But here was the real risk: The film was, if anything (observation courtesy of Newsweek's Richard Wolfe), too perfect. Obama said, late in the broadcast, that he wasn't a perfect man and wouldn't be a perfect president. But that didn't mean he didn't look perfect saying it.
It was no coincidence that Obama shot the infomercial from a place meant to evoke that Oval Office feel. It had everything but the faux seal. The message was clear: You get to decide whether Obama belongs there.
If you watch cable TV news, you know there is much talk these days of whether the so-called Bradley Effect will kick in on Election Day. The Bradley Effect dates back to a 1982 California gubernatorial race, in which some white people supposedly told pollsters they would vote for the black candidate so as not to seem racist - but pulled the lever for the white candidate on Election Day.
Some people doubt the Bradley Effect ever existed. In any case, I'm pretty sure that this is now 2008 and that it doesn't exist any more.
Certainly, you have no problem finding people willing to criticize Obama. If there are people who think he's a terrorist schmoozer or a closet socialist - I mean, other than Sarah Palin - they just say so. And, besides, the last thing anyone would worry about these days is offending the sensibilities of a pollster.
In fact, there seems to be little concern about anyone's sensibilities, or else you wouldn't see Palin hanging in effigy somewhere in West Hollywood. (Naturally, in a matter of days, there were several Obama-effigy-in-a-noose sightings as, I guess, retaliation.)
OK, race is certainly still a major factor in American life and in American politics, but, clearly, it's not the factor. I saw Spike Lee - who made the classic movie on race, Do the Right Thing, only 20 years ago - talking on MSNBC about how young people today have rejected racism. It's as obvious as the playlist on your kid's iPod.
Just ask the kid about "white guilt" and watch the what-are-you-talking-about-dude look come over his or her face.
And those of us a little older now see black presidents in movies and black presidents on TV shows and aren't surprised to see a black presidential candidate in a campaign infomercial.
We're to the point, in fact, that Obama goes on Jon Stewart - as part of the Wednesday night blitz - and they joke about the Bradley Effect. This would be, as far as I know, a first in late-night political-candidate humor.
"They've been saying that for a while, but we're still here," Obama said, adding, "I don't think white voters have gotten this memo about the Bradley Effect."
Stewart wondered if Obama's white half might go into the voting booth and suddenly say to himself, "I can't do this."
"It's a problem," Obama answered. "I've been going through therapy to make sure I vote properly on the 4th."
Actually, it shouldn't be a problem. If he gets confused, he can just take a DVD of a very convincing infomercial into the booth with him.
Featured
-
DNC in Denver
Complete coverage of the 2008 Democratic National Convention.
-
The Crevasse
A five-part series that examines one tragic day on Mount Rainier.
-
Deadly denial
Sick nuclear workers applied for government compensation but most haven't seen a dime.
-
Final Salute
The Rocky followed Maj. Steve Beck as he took on the most difficult duty of his career.
-
'Colorado's burning'
Coverage of the state's worst wildfires.
-
Columbine shootings
Coverage of the April 20, 1999, shootings at Littleton's Columbine High School.
-
The Crossing
Colorado's deadliest traffic accident killed 20 children on Dec. 14, 1961.
-
Osveli's journey
Osveli Sales left Guatemala for a better life. Two months later, he came home in a box.
-
Wake for an Indian warrior
Oglala Sioux bestow a tribute to the first tribal fatality in Iraq.
October 30, 2008
8:24 a.m.
Suggest removal
LetsThink writes:
I'll bet that Mr. Littwin enjoyed writing this editorial.
Another half page of liberal indocrination, nearly every day. Yuk.
Would it be possible that the Rocky Mountain News would provide equal conservative editorials?
(that would be 'fair and balanced')
I hope this is not too much to ask, since we Conservatives are helping to pay the salary of the editors.
October 30, 2008
8:30 a.m.
Suggest removal
Konyok writes:
As I watched the infomercial my mind kept straying back to this story:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news...
While thinking about the phenomenon, I came across this today:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB12253...
If he wins, be prepared for an avalanche of interesting news.
October 30, 2008
9:10 a.m.
Suggest removal
jay writes:
let me get this straight, konyok.
as you watched obama's presentation last night, your mind kept straying to an opinion piece in "timesonline" about obama's family members and then on to another opinion piece in the wall street journal from a guy who is "worried" about how popular obama is?
did i get that right from a self proclaimed "centrist"?
i would have hoped that you'd be thinking about what he was saying and thus why we can't vote to continue failed policies under mcsame.
October 30, 2008
9:17 a.m.
Suggest removal
EP writes:
Ah Littwin, you have the voice of a sardonic angel and I look forward to your piece after Obama wins.
October 30, 2008
9:19 a.m.
Suggest removal
rjnova writes:
This has to be Littwins most slavish, servile and obsequious article ever written for his sweetheart Obama. I did not waste on minute of time watching Obama’s info-mercial because I am sick of his continuous campaign messages. And that is where many people are with Obama—fatigued with 2 years of the jerk. Littwin keeps up the drum beat that he is ahead in polls and is going to win. And on the contrary the Bradley Effect is real. Ask Tennessee Congressman Ford who was ahead in all the polls last Senate race and lost by 5%. That has been Obama’s record from the primary battle with Hillary. He was ahead by 10-15% and if he won it was by 5%. And those were all Democrats voting.
What Littwin says about Bradley being a thing of the past is wishful thinking. After the Democrats have spent more than $500 million against the weakest Republican Party in history, they have bought Obama a 2-3% lead in most polls that have been wrong this complete election. And 3% ain’t enough to elect Obama. When 5% of blue collar Democrats are not going to vote for him it don’t take rocket science to make that calculation. Littwin is very selective with the numbers he is suggesting. And who does he think he is fooling. People have made up their minds by now on who they will vote for. All the kings’ men and all the kings’ horses are not going to change that.
Obama problem in the final analysis is he is the weakest candidate ever offered up for president in history and that will be his undoing.
October 30, 2008
9:27 a.m.
Suggest removal
jay writes:
rj, why do you think the republicans aren't doing well these last couple of election seasons?
October 30, 2008
10:11 a.m.
Suggest removal
Konyok writes:
jay,
The Times of London piece is normal investigative reporting, the kind that the American press has been curiously reticent to pursue with this candidate. (Remember Billy Carter?)
The Fouad Ajami opinion piece amplifies what Mike hinted at in his last column. It is an extraordinary phenomenon in American politics.
As I said, prepare yourself for an avalanche after the election. Nature abhors a vacuum.
October 30, 2008
11:10 a.m.
Suggest removal
Don_Lopez writes:
This column says so many positive things about race relations in America I couldn’t believe Mr. Littwin actually wrote it.
He’s correct when he says, “Just ask the kid about "white guilt" and watch the what-are-you-talking-about-dude look come over his or her face.”
And that’s a very, very good thing for America.
He also admitted that “In any case, I'm pretty sure that this is now 2008 and that (the Bradley effect) doesn't exist any more.”, and that race is “not 'the' factor” in this election.
It’s extremely gratifying to know that Mr. Littwin has finally seen the light and is now looking at the color-blind America so many of us have seen for so many years.
So I’m assuming this means should Senator Obama lose, race will not be used as an excuse.
Right?
October 30, 2008
11:25 a.m.
Suggest removal
jay writes:
don, you misconstrue littwin's argument with this statement:
"It’s extremely gratifying to know that Mr. Littwin has finally seen the light and is now looking at the color-blind America so many of us have seen for so many years."
we don't live in a color-blind america. but some of our kids are changing that...and which each generation we'll see those folks for whom race is still an issue die off and be replaced with those not raised with such thinking.
that said, we'll never have a completely color-blind america because ignorance will always be a part of some of some folks' lives.
i'm not sure what your point is konyok. how did you go from watching obama's presentation last night to thinking about folks related to him and some guy worried about how popular he is?
October 30, 2008
11:29 a.m.
Suggest removal
Don_Lopez writes:
Jay,
Thanks so much for clearing up what Mr. Littwin REALLY meant. I'm eternally grateful.
Don't know what I'd do without you.
October 30, 2008
11:48 a.m.
Suggest removal
Konyok writes:
jay,
While watching the glossy production of the candidate demonstrating his great caring for and intimacy with all of the sufferering people, the Times article was a poignant counterpoint.
I guess that things must be different for fancy folks. If my aunt were immigrating from a foreign country, I would do everything in my power to help her get situated. Since Zeituni Onyango was a computer programmer in Kenya, it is not at all unreasonable to think that an influential relative could have helped her find a position.
It seems as natural as day to me that the dissonance between multi million dollar advertisements of virtue and personal neglect would occasion curiosity and comment.
I was alarmed at the DU rally for the very reasons Ajami outlined. I had a flashback to all of the generic products in the movie "Repo Man:" Beer, Food, Hope, Change. The enthusiasm that I saw was way out of proportion to the generic content of the presentation.
As I said, there will be an avalanche of information after the election.
October 30, 2008
12:15 p.m.
Suggest removal
jay writes:
don, i'm not sure why you're confused. littwin's acknowledgement that many kids aren't hindered with racial prejudice in no way means that the generations of ignorant americans who came before them have shed the bonds with which their own bigotry still binds them.
well...as i've said before konyok...i think you should worry less about conspiracy theories about how candidates treat their families or how popular they are with the american people...and base your vote on actual policy stances.
October 30, 2008
12:55 p.m.
Suggest removal
Don_Lopez writes:
You don’t know why I’m confused?
It’s simple; I’m not as smart as you.
You must be the smartest guy on the planet!
And your pithy analysis of the current state of race relations in America is so uplifting’ “that said, we'll never have a completely color-blind america because ignorance will always be a part of some of some folks' lives.”
Damn (I’m slapping my forehead as I write this), so Mr. Littwin is actually a closet race relations skeptic and all his pretty words don’t mean a thing.
Thank you, sir, I can’t adequately express my gratitude and I’ll never again fall for just pretty words.
October 30, 2008
1:11 p.m.
Suggest removal
jay writes:
it doesn't take above average intelligence to assimilate the point that just because new generations of kids aren't as racist as their parents, it doesn't mean that america is all of a sudden "color-blind". nor does it take a genius to understand that some people in this country will always be stupid enough to discriminate because of any number of factors...including gender, race and sexual orientation.
coming to terms with these facts, however, does require the temporary suspension of all willful ignorance programs currently installed. have you tried that, don?
October 30, 2008
1:25 p.m.
Suggest removal
Don_Lopez writes:
Jay,
No I haven't, can you help?
October 30, 2008
1:38 p.m.
Suggest removal
jay writes:
i don't think so, don.
that's something you have to do yourself.
either you're willing to acknowledge politically inconvenient facts or you aren't.
that's completely up to you.
best of luck.
October 30, 2008
2:13 p.m.
Suggest removal
Don_Lopez writes:
Jay,
I say America is color-blind and would point to the success of Senator Obama as proof.
You say not only is America not color-blind but never will be.
Very uplifting.
I say you're smart and you repay the compliment by saying I'm "willfully ignorant".
Man, that hurts and it's mean.
You must be one of them there Republicans, always nasty and having to get in the last word.
No enlightened, tolerant, diversity-loving, patriotic Democrat would say those mean things about not only me but America.
October 30, 2008
2:45 p.m.
Suggest removal
jay writes:
it's only an insult if you let it be true, don.
again...i just don't see your confusion on mike's point. littwin's acknowledgement that many kids aren't hindered with racial prejudice in no way means that the generations of ignorant americans who came before them have shed the bonds with which their own bigotry still binds them.
now...can you provide me with some proof that there are no more ignorant americans out there still clinging to decades worth of racist beliefs?
isn't it a little silly to imply as much just because we're about to elect our first black president, don?
one would almost have to stick their head in the sand to make that work....right?
some would call that an example of "willful ignorance".
as i said before...it's only an insult if YOU make it one.
October 30, 2008
5 p.m.
Suggest removal
Konyok writes:
jay,
Policy stances? Would that be "wide" a la Larry Craig?
We both know that this race has always been a beauty contest. On the Democratic side there wasn't a millimeter of policy difference between Barack and Hillary. On the Republican side the contest was for the *real* conservative able to take up the gipper's mantle.
The general race has been no better, epitomized nicely by you yourself inanely repeating the "McSame" chant ad nauseam.
Policy stances?
OK, tax policy.
Obama promises Middle Class tax cuts. With each to and fro of the campaign, he complicates the issue. Example: after the "spreading the wealth" kerfuffle, Austan Goolsbee (Remember him? The economic adviser sent into exile after it became public that he was reassuring the Canadians that Obama didn't really mean it when he pledged to unilaterally renegotiate NAFTA. He's back.) emphatically stated that only people with jobs would receive tax credits under the Obama plan. Taken in their totality, the Obama tax initiatives begin to resemble ptolemaic epicycles in their complexity. If enacted, they would result in several new worksheets in the 1040 form. Having struggled with the HSA and Simple IRA worksheets myself, I would seriously consider hiring an accountant to do my taxes - on a 50K income. The job requirement would necessitate modifying the 1040-EZ.
In contrast, McCain suggests increasing the personal and dependent exemptions from $3500 to $5000. No muss, no fuss. Eligibility would increase for Earned Income Credit. Simple.
So, most of the "policy stances" are easily disposed. The race is a beauty contest.
For a real good time, check out Howard Stern's informal survey of Obama supporters:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iM2xHg...
October 30, 2008
5:06 p.m.
Suggest removal
Konyok writes:
BTW
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/1...
October 30, 2008
10:46 p.m.
Suggest removal
ArvadaMiner writes:
Jay,
Are you paid to be Littwin's enforcer or something?
I am very confused by so many people being enamored by Obama. All he does is get up and say a few buzzwords like "change", "we need to keep the faith", "McCain's George Bush Policies". All I see from Obama is a plan to raise taxes and make America more of a welfare state. He does not seem to believe in the same freedom I believe in - the freedom to succeed and yes, the freedom to fail.
Are the Democrats still so bitter about the 2000 election that they are blindly following this guy like sheep?
October 31, 2008
12:16 a.m.
Suggest removal
Brunowolfe writes:
ArvadaMiner writes: "I am very confused by so many people being enamored by Obama. All he does is get up and say a few buzzwords..."
Exactly WHY is it so hard to believe that the majority of Americans are so turned off by the 8 years of crap the country has dealt with, that at the moment they see a candidate they believe will "change" it, they like him?
The reason YOU can't believe it is you still think in terms of "raise taxes", and mud slinging, and "welfare state". You continue to think as the GOP wants you to think, as they pray that some last minute hail mary will win this presidential election.
The simple facts are the GOP had the house and senate the first 6 years of Bush's 2 terms,,,,and the results are a destroyed economy, a huge deficiet, millions of lost jobs, huge decline in living standard, a war we were lied to about, 9/11 (bush blew off Clinton's warning about Al Qaeda), etc, etc, etc....the list just goes on and on.
And now that McCain is losing, he starts the typical mud-slinging that the GOP is known for (Ayers, swift boat, etc.), his campaign is erratic, he looked terrible during the debates and lost all of them per the polls, he picked an unvetted unknown unworaldly bimbo for VP in an obvious "woman voter" grab, trots out Joe (the fake) plumber, continues to pander to the base when hsi only hope to win is the undecideds, etc, etc, etc,
Why is it you don't understand why America is enamored with Obama and not McCain, again?
October 31, 2008
6:11 a.m.
Suggest removal
Don_Lopez writes:
"now...can you provide me with some proof that there are no more ignorant americans out there still clinging to decades worth of racist beliefs?"
You know, Jay, you're right.
There are still a large block of Americans who vote for a candidate simply based on race but political correctness prevents criticism of them. And you're right when you say they're ignorant.
Maybe when that happens they can join our true color-blind society.
By the way, I know when a person writes in large case it's considered shouting so when a person writes in lower case is it considered whispering.
October 31, 2008
11:04 a.m.
Suggest removal
jay writes:
"We both know that this race has always been a beauty contest."
not really, konyok.
there are fundamental differences in the policy platforms of each party.
nearly 9 out of 10 americans want bush's policies discontinued.
2 out of 3 believe that mcsame's policies are the same as bush's.
the majority of americans support the dems' stances on the major issues before the country today.
it's ALL about policy.
i know that rush and rosen have been trying to push the talking point that this is some kind of "crush" and it's just a "beauty contest".
please don't get drawn into that kind of thinking. you neither, arvadaminer.
try to instead remember that the conservatives are going to lose this election because they did a bad job running the country and now want to continue down the same path they've taken us.
they've actively obstructed POLICY initiatives and legislation with the support of the vast majority of americans.
which is why they'll also lose additional seats in congress this year.
"Are you paid to be Littwin's enforcer or something?"
yes. mike pays me in beer to come in here and make sure his points aren't misconstrued.
finally...yes don, there are people who will vote for both candidates based on their racial beliefs...but that is hardly the only example of bigotry left in this far from color-blind country.
October 31, 2008
11:32 a.m.
Suggest removal
Konyok writes:
jay,
Of course there are fundamental differences.
However, your "9 out of 10" and "2 out of 3" assertions belie your point. That is the nomenclature of beauty contests, not serious policy debate. Personally, I doubt that 1 out of 10 could coherently identify those fundamental differences that you speak of.
Let's take the centerpiece of your candidate's campaign - "The Middle Class." Where in tarnation does THAT come from? The Democratic party used to be the party of the working man. In a classic case of Hegelian dialectic, the working man collided with Republican "family values" and became "working families." This year it is a long laundry list of promises to the middle class.
That is fine focus group tested pandering, but where's the beef?
What is the ideological rationale?
Both candidates demonstrate that the two party system is nearly bankrupt. They both are untethered from the old bonds of party loyalty and are campaigning under their own brand. The voters are certainly less partisan than ever - this year in Colorado, independents are the largest category.
Both campaigns have devolved to making unfulfillable promises to whatever voters are listening. Again, beauty contest. The race is about who is "in touch," who has better "judgement," who looks and sounds more "presidential."
No, my friend. It's all about marketing and image, impressions and emotions. The segment of the voter population that is processing policy in any meaningful way is miniscule, on both sides of the aisle.
October 31, 2008
12:28 p.m.
Suggest removal
jay writes:
"However, your "9 out of 10" and "2 out of 3" assertions belie your point."
it is predictable that you'd want to dismiss scientific, credible polling that supports my position, konyok, but you can't.
9 out of 10 americans don't want bush's POLICIES continued.
2 out of 3 americans believe mccain's POLICIES are the same as bush's.
the majority of americans support the dems' POLICY STANCES on the major issues before the country today.
seeing a trend here?
you should understand that the performance of conservative POLICY decisions are the reason republicans will lose both seats and the white house on tuesday.
policy.
i just don't know how else to make you understand that this election is far from a "beauty contest". the american people are looking for policy changes...and mcsame isn't giving them very many to choose from...hence the numbers...
"They both are untethered from the old bonds of party loyalty and are campaigning under their own brand"
nope. not even a little bit. mcsame's policy platform is nearly identical to bush's. it was more of the same from the GOP this year. nobody "untethered" anything. that was the problem.
the same can be said of obama's platform...which is nearly identical to hillary's...which is nearly identical to bill's. so there again...the dems just stuck with the policy stances that did well for them under clinton.
the problem is that the gop can't do the same thing and expect to get elected considering the track record seen over the last 8 years.
hence the numbers.
finally...you're right that campaign "promises", goals and best laid plans are going to be severely hampered by the mess left by the last administration. whomever wins next week will have one of the largest holes ever out of which to dig the country. ever.
there is simply no way that either party will be able to leave their plans for the country unchanged considering the damage control they'll be doing for years.
October 31, 2008
12:49 p.m.
Suggest removal
Konyok writes:
Whoops.
"it is predictable that you'd want to dismiss scientific, credible polling that supports my position, konyok, but you can't"
Jay, THIS is why discussing politics with you is like debating evolution with a creationist.
I'm not even going to bother asking you to define "scientific, credible polling." You are simply unequipped to answer. You simply regurgitate your articles of faith.
I think that you are going to be very surprised by the events of the next month.
October 31, 2008
1:47 p.m.
Suggest removal
jay writes:
"Jay, THIS is why discussing politics with you is like debating evolution with a creationist.
I'm not even going to bother asking you to define "scientific, credible polling." You are simply unequipped to answer. You simply regurgitate your articles of faith."
this is quite possibly the most ignorant statement made on these blogs in months.
i provide scientific polling about policy stances to support by position and you try to dismiss these tactics as being the same as those arguing against the theory of evolution based upon the belief in the supernatural?
nice try, konyok.
no need to lash out once we've established a point...just because it's not the point you were trying to make.
by the way...if you don't know why some polling is "scientific" and/or "credible" and why some is not...you need to take a college level stats class.
October 31, 2008
2:50 p.m.
Suggest removal
Konyok writes:
jay,
If you want to present a "scientific" and/or "credible" poll, first you have to, well, present it. Broad statements like "2 out of 3" without attribution are ... broad statements.
Even with poll in hand, my fundamentalist friend, statements like "2 out of 3" are INTERPRETATIONS. Assuming that the purported poll is of statistically significant sample size and the sample taken is a robust random sample of the population of voters, then it is of interest to examine the specific questions asked in the poll. Are the questions leading? Are there a lot of permutations to uncover nuances in the opinion being sampled? "Margin of error" is interesting, but so are measures of variance and central tendency.
Again, identify your poll. Your assertions alone are about as meaningful as my rectal emissions.
THIS is your fundamentalist slip showing again, jay. You cite some "2 out of 3" BS irrelevant to the question whether the campaign is substantive or impressionistic, and then are unable to defend it up with anything beyond your own say so. You believe, therefore it is!
October 31, 2008
3:06 p.m.
Suggest removal
jay writes:
lol...well, konyok, i knew once again we'd come back to the projection and the willful ignorance.
why would you call me the fundie, when you're the one trying to dismiss scientifically valid information?
seems a little silly.
http://www.pollingreport.com
please help yourself to all the scientifically valid polling data you'd like.
in the meantime, as i mentioned before, there's no need to lash out just because your point was established as less than valid.
remember kids, politically inconvenient facts are still facts.
conservatives are going to lose this election because of their policy decisions, not because of any "phenomenon" surrounding obama.
hillary would be beating mccain just as badly.
October 31, 2008
4:36 p.m.
Suggest removal
Don_Lopez writes:
Jay,
"finally...yes don, there are people who will vote for both candidates based on their racial beliefs..."
At last, we agree on something! Not that agreement is required.
You know, there are some folks who actually think bigotry only comes in one color.
Hard to believe, isn't it?
November 1, 2008
11:45 a.m.
Suggest removal
Konyok writes:
jay,
What "scientifically valid information" am I rejecting?
Your vague "2 out of 3" assertion? Jeez.
Like I said, discussing politics with you ....
February 10, 2009
10:29 a.m.
Suggest removal
Spotcheck writes:
Obama is one well grounded individual, who is both intelligent and
draws crowds unlike anything I have ever witnessed before. So everyone get all upset that the intelligent candidate won the office this time.
Hey, you had your chance, and indeed have been all but running this nation since 1981, with one break coming with that dog-like Clinton we once had. At least the guy got us headed towards balanced budgets again, something no Republican President since Ronald Reagan was sworn into office can admit doing.
My bet is that quite a few people could not really follow Obama intellectually speaking last night which is just fine with me. Anyone who supports the Middle Class as he does is my kind of President since the Middle Class is invaluable to this nation-state's vvery existence.
February 10, 2009
11:21 a.m.
Suggest removal
incognitoboy writes:
i'm kinda curious why this nearly 4 month old article has been recycled? littwin on vacation? higlighted the wrong article when he hit "send"?