The talk these days is about how Obama leads the 'Nice' race, and is therefore that much more formidable. Or to put it another way, now that we know he has no resume, no tools for foreign policy decisions or economic infrastructure, we are now told Obama will win anyway, because he's just so lovable. Yeah, right, sure. Look, I believe Barack Obama is a nice enough guy, but we have not seen his temper very much, his people and the media working overtime to keep him from ever having to answer any really tough questions. There were flashes though, when his canned answers for why he stayed close to a country-hating racist of a pastor for twenty-plus years got challenged, albeit briefly. Obama is not as nice and fluffy as he pretends, and I can't help but wonder if he won't show a little ire along the way to November.
But aside from that, the old fable that the 'nice' candidate wins the White House is suspect at best. Sure, Eisenhower and Reagan and Jimmy Carter were all well known for their charm and high-watt smiles, but who can seriously claim the same for Lyndon Johnson or Richard Nixon? Was Bill Clinton really a nicer guy than George H.W. Bush? And what about the election in 2000? Clearly, George W. Bush was a nicer guy than Al Gore, even Mr. Gore admitted the same, but Gore actually received more votes in the Popular tally than did Bush. The theory just doesn't hold up.




Comments (12)
Hope, change and now *nice*... (Below threshold)1. Posted by Oyster | May 13, 2008 4:43 PM | Score: 3 (3 votes cast)
Hope, change and now *nice*. Gah! I can't take anymore.
1. Posted by Oyster | May 13, 2008 4:43 PM |
Score: 3 (3 votes cast)
Posted on May 13, 2008 16:43
2. Posted by bill-tb | May 13, 2008 4:50 PM | Score: 2 (2 votes cast)
A third term for Bush would be far better than a second term for Jimmy Carter.
2. Posted by bill-tb | May 13, 2008 4:50 PM |
Score: 2 (2 votes cast)
Posted on May 13, 2008 16:50
3. Posted by P. Bunyan | May 13, 2008 6:01 PM | Score: 2 (2 votes cast)
And a first term for Karl Marx would be worse than a second term for Jimmy Carter. With Obama we'd get both simultaneously.
3. Posted by P. Bunyan | May 13, 2008 6:01 PM |
Score: 2 (2 votes cast)
Posted on May 13, 2008 18:01
4. Posted by Peter F. | May 13, 2008 6:22 PM | Score: 1 (1 votes cast)
During one of his commercials in October, I suspect we'll see Obama laying in a field of poppies surrounded by fluffy bunnies, adorable golden retriever puppies and children holding signs and signing "I'd Like to Teach The World To Sing"....
4. Posted by Peter F. | May 13, 2008 6:22 PM |
Score: 1 (1 votes cast)
Posted on May 13, 2008 18:22
5. Posted by Peter F. | May 13, 2008 6:27 PM | Score: 1 (1 votes cast)
Hope, change and now *nice*. Gah! I can't take anymore.
Oh, look on the bright side, Oyster! There's just a little over 6 months to go! And possibly 4 years after that!
You'll be immune and fully indoctrinated by Year 2.
5. Posted by Peter F. | May 13, 2008 6:27 PM |
Score: 1 (1 votes cast)
Posted on May 13, 2008 18:27
6. Posted by jp2 | May 13, 2008 7:19 PM | Score: -4 (4 votes cast)
"now that we know he has no resume, no tools for foreign policy decisions or economic infrastructure..."
Let me guess - that didn't stop you from voting for the current President? And isn't he on the foreign relations committee?
6. Posted by jp2 | May 13, 2008 7:19 PM |
Score: -4 (4 votes cast)
Posted on May 13, 2008 19:19
7. Posted by Peter F. | May 13, 2008 7:55 PM | Score: 2 (2 votes cast)
Let me guess - that didn't stop you from voting for the current President? And isn't he on the foreign relations committee?
Um, heck, just by proxy relationship with his father he gained valuable insight into foreign policy and relations. Moreover, he actually served as governor of Texas for nearly 5 years and was actually IN the office for one 4-year term and was re-elected before running for President.
Obama's was an acting Junior Senator for roughly 1.5 years until he sought the Presidency in early 2007. And he hasn't had much to do with FRC since late 2006, and even when he was active his record isn't terribly impressive in that arena.
Obama. An inexperienced nice guy.
7. Posted by Peter F. | May 13, 2008 7:55 PM |
Score: 2 (2 votes cast)
Posted on May 13, 2008 19:55
8. Posted by Adrian Browne | May 13, 2008 8:11 PM | Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Damned if you do, damned if you don't.
8. Posted by Adrian Browne | May 13, 2008 8:11 PM |
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Posted on May 13, 2008 20:11
9. Posted by bryanD | May 13, 2008 10:47 PM | Score: -3 (3 votes cast)
"The talk these days is about how Obama leads the 'Nice' race"-djd
Nice to where? Cherbourg?
"There were flashes though, when his canned answers for why he stayed close to a country-hating racist of a pastor for twenty-plus years got challenged, albeit briefly."-djd
Why would a black man (Wright) volunteer for the Marine Corps in the 1950s if he was a "country-hating racist"?
I would say to you, Beware of being the butt on the totem pole of Objective Patriotism.
"Sure, Eisenhower and Reagan and Jimmy Carter were all well known for their charm and high-watt smiles..."-djd
Oh, please! Eisenhower was an introvert except on business (which was conducted over a card table).
etc.etc.etc.Zzzzz...
9. Posted by bryanD | May 13, 2008 10:47 PM |
Score: -3 (3 votes cast)
Posted on May 13, 2008 22:47
10. Posted by Maggie | May 13, 2008 11:02 PM | Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Eisenhower, was of a broad stature which
never brooked cutting and running.
Which is one of the reasons people have
the freedom of speech to denigrate him today.
10. Posted by Maggie | May 13, 2008 11:02 PM |
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Posted on May 13, 2008 23:02
11. Posted by bryanD | May 14, 2008 8:46 AM | Score: -1 (1 votes cast)
"Eisenhower, was of a broad stature which
never brooked cutting and running."-m
Eisenhower was elected to clean up the mess in Korea. (Everyone knew it was a mess after MacArthur advocated seeding the Yalu with nuclear pebbles. A desperation measure if there ever was one.) Eisenhower agreed with the DPRK to go back to Start (38th parallel), astutely calculating that both sides would be inclined to claim victory and maintain a cease fire pending further agression from the other side.
Eisenhower also put the kabosh on the conspiracy by Israel, France and the UK to seize the Suez Canal. The plan was for Israel to attack Egypt and for the UK and France to pull Israel's chestnuts out of the fire by acting as "peace intermediaries" while confirming Israel's gains (and before the Arab world could retaliate). Eisenhower used some un-PC descriptors for Israeli leadership as he upset their gameboard.
Of course, Eisenhower told the French to go fly a kite in Vietnam. He was 100% against the folly of large US military presence in SE Asia, sending only training units of officers and NCOs to the ARVN with some logistical support. (He did stand by as Diem cancelled scheduled elections in 1956, though)
And how can we forget Eisenhower's Open Skies program. Of course, the shoot-down of FG Powers ruined it in the end, but Ike's plan was to allow mutual overflights between USA and USSR as well as miltary observers of opposite countries inside military installations. This wasn't Theory. Ike presented it to Kruschev who was rather suspicious and said he'd have to consult the board of directors.
Of course, facts are like grass against the cry of "cut and run!" coming from the cheap seats.
11. Posted by bryanD | May 14, 2008 8:46 AM |
Score: -1 (1 votes cast)
Posted on May 14, 2008 08:46
12. Posted by Maggie | May 14, 2008 12:21 PM | Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
BrianD
Is there any reason you cannot disagree
civilly?
If the seats at Wizbang are so cheap, why
do you insist on cheapening yourself by
associating through posting here.
BTW, Wizbang might be fair and balanced in
letting voices from differing views have
their say, but it is not a democracy.
The editors do have the last say always.
12. Posted by Maggie | May 14, 2008 12:21 PM |
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Posted on May 14, 2008 12:21