Antarctica intimidating quiet stoutness …

Democrats are pragmatic progressives that are willing to dump some of their principles so they can get the support of a couple rednecks in Ohio/Kentucky/etc. so they can maybe win an election or two.

YES, THANK YOU Ravi.

It was driving me insane that I could not remember Alan Keyes, and I kept Googling Alan Payne (?????)

Al Sharpton comes to mind, as well as the other African American candidate who caused a storm during one of the elections as an ‘angry black man’ (I can’t remember which election it was, and what his name was; his wife was of Indian origin)

That would be Alan Keyes, who ran for President in 1996 and 2000. He also ran in 2004 against Obama for the Senate. Here is a debate clip from 2004 which gets pretty amusing towards the end.

If her husband wins, maybe after he’s done with his tenure?

That would be a good thing.

“But do you think Obama would also win it if he portrayed himself as the angry black man? I don’t see it as a sexist issue to smooth Michelle down, but rather as a borderline racist issue.”

Very good point about race rather than gender. Al Sharpton comes to mind, as well as the other African American candidate who caused a storm during one of the elections as an ‘angry black man’ (I can’t remember which election it was, and what his name was; his wife was of Indian origin).

“I like her a lot. But I wonder if she wants that role.”

If her husband wins, maybe after he’s done with his tenure?

I agree with you about the political savvyness, but from what I perceive, with Michelle’s case, it’s the attempt to tone down the ‘angry black woman;

I agree. But do you think Obama would also win it if he portrayed himself as the angry black man? I don’t see it as a sexist issue to smooth Michelle down, but rather as a borderline racist issue.

I also think that Obama and Michelle both have to show they understand race without doing anything about it. I know I am not articulating this well, but I think their two-pronged approach to race is very clever: acknowledge that race is an issue (which it is in the US), but make it seem like, “But we’re not radical about it or anything).

Absolutely. I have to say I was pretty impressed with the way he turned the Jeremiah Wright fiasco into an advantage. I thought it was over for him at that time, and he managed to rebound.

Why not Michelle Obama for president?

I like her a lot. But I wonder if she wants that role.

Speaking of Maureen and telling Hilary to water down, here is an article I remember railing at when it came out in 2007:

“Should Hillary Pretend to Be a Flight Attendant?”

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/14/opinion/14dowd.html

And then recent one of Palin, where Maureen’s take on Palin is different.

“Vice in Go-Go Boots?”

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/31/opinion/31dowd.html?em

“It is disheartening to see how the media, specially a publication like the NY Times, still hires these people.”

Meritocracy is sometimes a joke in the US.

“I think it has more to do with going off-message and not being as political savvy as their spouses than anything else. Did you see how Michelle Obama’s “first time being proud of America” was turned into?”

I agree with you about the political savvyness, but from what I perceive, with Michelle’s case, it’s the attempt to tone down the ‘angry black woman;” I mean, why ’soften’ Michelle’s image? Image is one thing, concrete quotes is another. I do agree with you that the ‘proud to be American’ was blown out of context, but I think there is another issue as well.

I also think that Obama and Michelle both have to show they understand race without doing anything about it. I know I am not articulating this well, but I think their two-pronged approach to race is very clever: acknowledge that race is an issue (which it is in the US), but make it seem like, “But we’re not radical about it or anything).

I am not sure if that qualifies as ‘culture’ wars, but it might for some, so pray tell, what def. is everyone going by?

To me culture wars, is emphasising the differences between opposing values – e.g. traditional vs liberal, christians vs non-christians, NRA vs gun control….

Yeah, but being a blogger and a potential (or actual) first lady are two different things, and during both the Bill Clinton reign and Obama campaign, their opinionated wives have been kept on a leash.

I just mentioned liberal bloggers because you mentioned Malkin and Coulter. I think it has more to do with going off-message and not being as political savvy as their spouses than anything else. Did you see how Michelle Obama’s “first time being proud of America” was turned into?

No, but Maureen Dowd just couldn’t shut the hell up about Hillary being a woman.

True. She also uses the term “effette” to describe Obama. It is disheartening to see how the media, specially a publication like the NY Times, still hires these people. I mean Bill Kristol?

The Clinton machine ultimately had no interest in forcing that issue with Obama because it would have dragged her down before the general election.

It is a luxury that the GOP will not give him

She was already with more than 20 million dollars deficit, virtually no support among the Democrat establishment, and even so she tried to get her way in counting Florida/Michigan votes. She was already way down, and had no choice but to concede if she wanted to have a future in the Senate (by that time Obama was more popular than her in NY state), and if she wanted to have a shot in 2012 if McCain ever manages to win.

My take is that Obama’s biggest obstacle to the Presidency was Clinton, not McCain.

No, but Maureen Dowd just couldn’t shut the hell up about Hillary being a woman.

“There are many strong women among Democrats, not to mention liberal female bloggers.”

Yeah, but being a blogger and a potential (or actual) first lady are two different things, and during both the Bill Clinton reign and Obama campaign, their opinionated wives have been kept on a leash.

“And I don’t think anyone was telling Hillary to tone down when she was a candidate.”

I don’t think so either, not someone major anyway, though I’d like to check that. But she did get called really, really nasty things during Clinton’s presidency. And though I don’t agree with her politics, I did feel a certain solidarity with her because no one deserves to get denigrated based on their gender.

Because Obama has responded (brilliantly, in my opinion, but ‘brilliantly’ doesn’t mean truthful, just that it was clever) about the priest thing, race relations, rumors about his being Muslim, etc, and I am not sure if that qualifies as ‘culture’ wars, but it might for some, so pray tell, what def. is everyone going by?

W/r/t Hilary, I remember they did the same shit to her: Demo advisors told her to “tone it down’ when her hubby was running. Because you know, strong women in politics have no place, unless they are Repubican (ie, my twins Michelle Malkin and Anne Coulter).

There are many strong women among Democrats, not to mention liberal female bloggers. And I don’t think anyone was telling Hillary to tone down when she was a candidate. The trouble is that spouses can go off-message, or say something that is interpreted the wrong way and be ravaged by the media and the opponents. So I understand that position. There were several calls for Bill Clinton to tone down after South Carolina.

I readily accept that ‘values’ may well be code for ‘religion.’ In other words, it matters very much to the ‘values vote’ whether one is muslim, christian etc. Obama had to respond to a religious question with all the laden connotations that has. Values were the connotation, but religion was the important part.

Clinton, of course, has all her dirty laundry in public – fully scrutinised. If ever any candidate was in a position to take on the values crowd it was her.

Ravi Naik (33) – I don’t disagree with much of that, but…

‘Obama would not have the support that he has if he engaged in such divisive wars’ The Clinton machine ultimately had no interest in forcing that issue with Obama because it would have dragged her down before the general election.

It is a luxury that the GOP will not give him.

“That’s too hazy I’m afraid – I can’t see that being the reason that people vote Obama.”

I agree, so let’s look at how Obama had to fend off rumors that he was Muslim, and how he has made it a point that he’s Christian. In the larger scheme of politics, it doesn’t matter whether you are Christian or Muslim, does it? And yet, he had to respond to a values thingy.

Also, being pro-abortion, pro-gay marriage, etc ARE values as well.

You have, of course, made no secret of your strong preference for an Obama presidency but there has to be an acknowledgement that the Clintons are masters of the culture wars game….Hillary struck me as understanding that, I can’t say the same for Obama and Biden.

I followed the Democrat primaries, and if anything, Clinton did play the culture wars game when she was in Ohio and Pennsylvania, with her sudden love of guns and her distaste for liberal San Francisco values and Obama’s elitism for bringing up the bitter comment. The fact is that her negativity brought and energised Obama’s supporters and independents. And she lost by March, it was improbable for her to win the necessary votes. Obama would not have the support that he has if he engaged in such divisive wars. After all, he does reach for evangelicals and has more support from these people than Al Gore and Kerry.

The point is, that Obama has a better strategy than to play cultural wars (fire against fire), and he is betting that a good number of people are in real bad shape and want someone who is more interested in solving problems than to engage in negativity. It is undeniable that his “change” shtick has taken him very far. Which is not to say he shouldn’t attack – he has, and will continue to do so – and he can do it without actually engaging in cultural wars.

That’s too hazy I’m afraid – I can’t see that being the reason that people vote Obama. What ever ‘values’ the values vote is coming out for, it isn’t ‘change.’ This to me sums up Obama’s problem quite well actually. It all just feels very fuzzy at the edges to say the least. For good or for bad that is not something one could say about the Clintons.

I agree absolutely with you that Americans will vote for a non-white person (male or female). It’s just that with the best will in the world I just can’t see that person being Obama.

I hope I’m wrong.

“Meanwhile, last week was also a big one for Barack Obama, with his triumphal convention speech highlighting his Midwestern roots (as opposed to anything more, ahem, cosmopolitan). There is now an “executive summary” of the speech newly bolted to his biography page. “Kansas heartland”? Check. “Values”? Check. “Christian”? Double check! (Michelle Obama’s biography was also reworked. In keeping with the effort to soften her image, a dry résumé was changed to focus far more on family.) ”

http://www.slate.com/id/2199228/

W/r/t Hilary, I remember they did the same shit to her: Demo advisors told her to “tone it down’ when her hubby was running. Because you know, strong women in politics have no place, unless they are Repubican (ie, my twins Michelle Malkin and Anne Coulter).