I watched 60 Minutes last night so my readers didn't have to. The key moment was when Obama tried to define what would make him a good President. Careful observers will have to concede that he wasn't actually describing himself, except perhaps as how his ego causes him to see it. But he was most certainly describing John McCain.
Yes, I too cringed when McCain suggested Andrew Cuomo for the SEC. But significantly less than I did when Lawrence Taylor decimated Joe Theisman's leg on national television figuring it was chiefly for the benefit of Ohio and Pennsylvania Democrats who may hold the key to putting victory out of reach for Barack Obama. As the saying goes, you go to war with the army they gave you. But the pivotal point for me was a question to Obama.
In essence, "Why are you the guy to be elected President?"
I've heard Obama's answer in any number of interviews I've conducted over the years and always from people I eventually didn't hire. It was, "I'm the guy (or gal) who can ..." It was not, I'm the guy who did.
Obama's entreaty was along the lines of I'm the guy who can get people who strongly disagree in a room and mediate to find some common ground. What was totally lacking in Obama's answer was, I'm the guy who did ... not much of anything, for that matter.
Some people, likely driven by ego, have a sort of magical view of themselves. They believe that if they just get the chance they know they are the right person to make certain things happen, to make a difference somehow. Yet, at every step of their lives they mostly avoid any opportunity to prove the point. Just think about Obama's argument juxtaposed to John McCain.
When has Obama ever gotten people who "almost violently" disagreed politically into a room to reach consensus? He certainly never did it in the US Senate, though he might have had he ever shown up as opposed to immediately launching his Presidential bid.
Were there people who disagreed when Obama was state Senator back in Illinois? Sure, most likely about how much to raise taxes, how much to regulate - absolutely nothing as compared to what he would find as President in Washington, DC.
Let me guess, he sorted out some neighborhood skirmishes as a community organizer and based on that he professes himself qualified to be King? When I'm interviewing to hire someone that's the point at which I start thinking - Next!
As best I can tell, in role after role when Obama had a chance to step up and actually lead, he voted present and preserved his political ambition over everything else.
Disagree with him or not, cantankerous as he might be, John McCain is a man who has done that very thing. He doesn't live in some magical world where he simply believes he can. Yes, he has angered the Right because of McCain - Feingold, McCain - Kennedy, etc. But isn't that the proof in the pudding of someone who can get people who disagree in a room and bring about some consensus? I'd argue it is.
Obama did define what America likely wants in a next President for 60 Minutes. But for me, in doing so he betrayed both his inexperience and his arrogance and actually made the argument to elect John McCain.
John McCain: "I'm the guy who did (it all wrong)"
Posted by: Spartan112 | Monday, September 22, 2008 at 09:53 AM
Barack Obama: "Well...um...uh..I..uh..uh....where the hell is my teleprompter?"
Posted by: templar knight | Monday, September 22, 2008 at 09:56 AM
I'd rather have a guy who says "um" on occasion and comes up with the right answer than a guy who answers the wrong question forcefully (I will not meet with Zapatero).
Posted by: Spartan112 | Monday, September 22, 2008 at 10:03 AM
I wish I could claim I thought of this but someone name FelineFine on Lucianne posted it
Obama - the Wizard of Uhs
I also like
Obama - Captain Zero
Posted by: Lala | Monday, September 22, 2008 at 10:34 AM
I have been for McCain from the get go. As for the Wizard of Uhs. I don't want to listen to four years of "Uhs".
Posted by: joeb | Monday, September 22, 2008 at 11:42 AM
Last night at the Emmys - Is Colbert endorsing McCain or is he talking about H. Clinton?
"Munching on the snack, Colbert said, “America needs a prune. It may not be a young, sexy plum. Granted, it is shriveled and, at times, hard to swallow, but this dried-up old fruit has the experience we need.”
http://www.bostonherald.com/entertainment/television/reviews/view/2008_09_22_Emmy_ceremony_was_no_award-winner/srvc=home&position=1
Posted by: Lala | Monday, September 22, 2008 at 12:03 PM
Uh...uh...sorry, Sparty, Obama has never come up with the right answer. The uhs are evidence of that. He has to use them so he can check and see which way the wind is blowing.
Anyway, Obama is not qualified for President. The uhs don't matter that much, as he has no chance of winning. It'll be another McGovern debacle for the Democrats, as they had this election in hand with Hillary but chose to be politically correct and appease the nutroot wing of the Party and lose.
Posted by: templar knight | Monday, September 22, 2008 at 12:05 PM
After reading the latest news, Sparty, your messiah has now apparently given up on the entire South, as he has pulled his ads in Georgia, which was the most likely state he could win. He has also dumped the 50-state strategy by giving up on No. Dakota, Alaska, and Idaho. Wow, he is trying the Hillary stategy, which was to win the big states and ignore the others. He's going down like McGovern.
Posted by: templar knight | Monday, September 22, 2008 at 12:21 PM
Both candidates must weigh every word. One candidate because every time he opens his mouth and is not absolutely clear, the MSM is all over him.
The other candidate because he is not sure what he is supposed to be saying according to the polls and what his real thoughts are that he should be keeping to himself lest the American people catch on. It is difficult not to pause when you must think out each question to make sure to say what will get you elected politically (what they want to hear) instead of what you believe philosophically.
Posted by: mary | Monday, September 22, 2008 at 02:43 PM
Wow, Mary, that was a brilliant analysis, and spot on. Frankly, I had not thought about the reason for Barack's sudden search for the right words. I think you've nailed it.
Posted by: templar knight | Monday, September 22, 2008 at 03:17 PM
"After reading the latest news, Sparty, your messiah has now apparently given up on the entire South, as he has pulled his ads in Georgia, which was the most likely state he could win. He has also dumped the 50-state strategy by giving up on No. Dakota, Alaska, and Idaho. Wow, he is trying the Hillary stategy, which was to win the big states and ignore the others. He's going down like McGovern."
All this and the polls are swinging his way...hmmm. Go figure.
Posted by: Spartan112 | Monday, September 22, 2008 at 03:35 PM
I don't think Colbert should be talking about swallowing the dried up old fruit.
On the subject of the economy. What would Jesus do? Throw all the money changers out of the temple. That's what.
Posted by: joeb | Monday, September 22, 2008 at 03:37 PM
Come Nov. 4th you will see that tk is right and spartan is wrong. It may be close but Va. and Fla. will go for McCain and McCain will win going away. Then the Democrats will be left to anwer why they didn't put a woman on their ticket.
There are many white women who now feel left out by the Democratic Party.
Hell hath no fury like a woman scorned.
Posted by: joeb | Monday, September 22, 2008 at 03:44 PM
If those white women who were voting for Clinton have switched to Palin it looks as though they are seeing the error of their ways as it's becoming clear the emperess has no clothes (or no lipstick as the case may be).
Cetainly the current state of the economy can't be helping McCain, I mean he's literally switching positions within hours. He's shifting more rapidly than the Dow.
Posted by: Spartan112 | Monday, September 22, 2008 at 04:19 PM
--I'd rather have a guy who says "um" on occasion and comes up with the right answer than a guy who answers the wrong question forcefully
Surely this is why you gave Bush so much latitude for his verbal shortcomings...oh, wait. You only tolerate such stammering from the Chosen One, cause he's sooo smart...
Maybe not:
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/09/palin_and_obamawhat_really_is.html
Oh, and let's hear Obama talk his way out of this conflict. First, he was wrong on Iraq, then on the Financial Crisis. Hmmm, he's o'fer 2 on the biggest issues of his time.
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601039&refer=columnist_hassett&sid=aSKSoiNbnQY0
Where is the msm on this? Too busy investigating Palin's high school yearbook.
Liberals suck.
Posted by: ET | Monday, September 22, 2008 at 04:28 PM
Gee, a guy that works for McCain says it's all the fault of the Dems. For a party - Democrats - that was out of power for most of the last decade, that's pretty impressive.
Look like it's time to write a new book:
http://www.amazon.com/Dow-36-000-Strategy-Profiting/dp/0609806998
McCain flip-flops more than a dying fish.
Posted by: Worst President Ever | Monday, September 22, 2008 at 04:37 PM
"McCain flip-flops more than a dying fish."
But still not as much as the dead fish Obama. LOL.
Posted by: templar knight | Monday, September 22, 2008 at 05:12 PM
templar knight, I hope you seriously meant the comment, sometimes I can't differentiate sarcasm..lol..but, after the kind of day I had, the comment was nice to read.
I sort of look at myself. If someone says "do I look fat in this dress?" That is usually an "um" moment for me cause if they are asking they definitely know they do look fat and just want me to lie to them. I'm not good at this stuff and the "um" allows me time to craft a response that doesn't really tell the truth, which would be, "yes, you do look fat in the dress" but isn't an outright lie, which would be, "oh you look great in the dress". The "um" allows me the time to arrive at the answer that gets me out of it "well, what do you think? I'm not so good at this stuff". Essentially, I'm really being dishonest by not telling the truth but it just gets me off the hook and is "safe mode".
Posted by: mary | Monday, September 22, 2008 at 05:19 PM
FORMER CLINTON STAFFERS JUMP TO MCCAIN
"Obama really doesn't have the experience,” said Miguel Lausell, senior national political advisor to Hillary Clinton. “We don't know what he's going to be doing. We don't really know where he's coming from, and that's the big difference."
read more at http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2008/09/21/1430406.aspx
Posted by: Lala | Monday, September 22, 2008 at 05:20 PM
Mary, I seriously meant that comment. And I know what you mean, when you spend all day in the company of Soros-funded Democratic trolls, it is sometimes difficult to distinguish sarcasm from truth.
And I just came back here from The Anchoress, where I linked an article about Obama and his treatment of the women on his staff versus McCain. Obama pays his women staffers 83 cents for every 1.00 men make, whereas McCain pays his women 1.04 for every 1.00 he pays men. Interesting.
Posted by: templar knight | Monday, September 22, 2008 at 05:51 PM
Stoner, can you even read? Your man killed the McCain sponsored bill that would have addressed the Fannie/Freddie problem, then took money and advice from top execs. So, before you get ready with the "Bush caused the financial meltdown", get your facts straight. Cause everytime you say it, we'll know your lying.
Loser.
Posted by: ET | Monday, September 22, 2008 at 05:52 PM
Time for McCain - the Senator wh0 was for deregulation before he was agin it - to crank up the lie machine.
A new CNN/Opinion Research Corporation Poll suggests that by a 2-to-1 margin, Americans blame Republicans over Democrats for the financial crisis that has swept across the country the past few weeks — one factor that may have contributed to an apparent increase in Barack Obama’s edge over John McCain in the race for the White House.
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/09/22/republicans-blamed-obama-gains-over-financial-crisis/
Posted by: Worst President Ever | Monday, September 22, 2008 at 08:05 PM
Worst President Ever, there is a simple explanation for this. The republicans haven't hired the PR spin machines being funded by the DEMS. I wish the republicans would get in gear and get their side of the story out.
Posted by: mary | Monday, September 22, 2008 at 10:32 PM
"--- The republicans haven't hired the PR spin machines being funded by the DEMS. I wish the republicans would get in gear and get their side of the story out. ---"
Aye. We don't have Hollyweird or evil multi-billionaires bent on world socialism on our side.
Posted by: seekeronos | Monday, September 22, 2008 at 11:28 PM
Obama gives up his fifty state stratergy to concentrate on states 51 through 57 and number 59 (also giving up on the 58th state, Alaska).
Wise use of your money Barack.
Posted by: eaglewingz08 | Tuesday, September 23, 2008 at 09:28 AM
No, the Public believes it because it's the truth. Republicans have been the party of de-regulation and free-market economics for decades. Reagan branded government as the problem. They - and McLame - never met a regulation they didn't want to cut. Additionally, Republicans were essentially in charge of Congress from the mid 90's to 2006 and have had the White House for the last eight years.
Posted by: Worst President Ever | Tuesday, September 23, 2008 at 11:10 AM