Yes, the fact that Obama campaign event coordinators at Carnegie Mellon University were demanding, “Get me more white people, we need more white people†to sit behind Michelle Obama yesterday suggests that Barack Obama thinks he needs to court the white vote in Pennsylvania.
This may surprise the Obama-supporting Jed Report, which correctly notes that some polling data suggests that Hillary Clinton has a bigger problem with white voters than Obama. The flaw in the Jed Report’s analysis — as PW regulars may already know — is that the problem demographic for both candidates is not whites; it is white men. That Obama gets 40% of white male registered voters against McCain looks good only by comparison to Clinton’s even more anemic 35% of white males. That is the range historically garnered by losing Democratic candidates (the exception being Bill Clinton in 1996) — and the Jed Report is looking at a Pew poll of registered voters before the rigors of a general election campaign.
Moreover, Obama’s problem with white men is not race as much as it is culture.  Blue-collar white men in the Appalachians who supported Doug Wilder are less likely to support seemingly effete intellectuals regardless of race — just ask Mike Dukakis or John F. Kerry.
That’s why the only thing more dumb than the very public racial staging at Michelle Obama’s event in Pittsburgh yesterday was having Teresa Heinz Kerry turn up to stress the similarities between Obama and her first husband, the late John Heinz III. Because after Barack’s various cultural gaffes in Pennsylvania, nothing draws in Joe Sixpack like Theresa reminding everyone of her inherited wealth and discussing her newfound friendship-by-Blackberry with the edgy, wealthy and whiny Michelle Obama.
Appalachians
Blue collar white men anywhere are not going to be supporting an effete intellectual – especially when that same intellectual tacitly approves the phrase ‘G- D- America’. That will be thrown up again and again, and no matter how much spinning on trade, that visceral reaction to ‘G- D- America’ is going to win out.
I mentioned earlier that my dad, a staunch Democrat and retired schoolteacher will not vote for sen. Obama just because of that.
O is back on top.
– PEW, PEW…..Hmmmmm…..Where have I heard that name before….Is there a 7 year old girl somewhere in Wyoming, that doesn’t know PEW is on the DNC payroll?
– When a polling org has regular strategy meetings with a particular political party, how do they stay in business? Oh, right, forgot. When you’re the powerless party you tend to need to invent reality.
– I bet sKerry would like his money back.
it is an average of all polls, BBH.
look at the charts.
im interested in the trends.
– Its too late for that nishi. PEW showed their PR credentials in 2004 for all time, when they managed to keep all the Left-wing news outlets twisting in the breeze til 3am in the morning, “because its just not possible that sKerry didn’t win…..PEW said it was so, and how could our beloved propaganda organ be wrong…”?????
– I thought Ron Reagan was going to have a coronary, or at least cry all over Chris Mathews brooks brothers suit.
– You can follow all the trends you want. The only trends you’ll get from PEW. aka the fiction publishing arm of the DNC, is daytime soap like narratives.
– The only time their projections are accurate is when whatever they need to prove accidentally aligns with reality.
– Just to make sure no one would ever trust them again, the DNC had post election meetings to try to figure out why the phoney exit pool scam didn’t work.
– Give it a rest.
– Thats not polling, its manipulation of perceptions that they’re after.
Nishtoon, smart people — I’m sorry, “ppl” — know that polls don’t tell you what they claim to tell you. Not even the trends.
O is back on top.
That was a link? I thought she was talking about her “Hasbro Barry Obama Teen Idol Blow Up Doll”
Ah, trends. They mean something except when they don’t. Immigrations trends in the early 1900’s showed a strong and steady influx of people from eastern and southeastern Europe. Except that trend ended.
What does that mean matoko? It means that trends are what we see when we look back at the past, they show clear with clear hindsight the patterns we have already experienced. Alas, like my example trend of immigration, they do not predict the future. If you want augury, I suggest you consult with someone who really knows what he is talking about, such as Michal Barone. I doubt you will do that as such intellectual rigor is foreign to your being so follow your feelings in your mind and consult an astrologer or Dr. Dean. They’ll be equally as useful for they will both tell you what you want to hear.
– Come to think of it, the Donkeys would probably do better if they hired Cleo.
Nishidiot believes in teh Singularity. That means she believes all trends continue infinitely into the future, following exactly the same mathematical curve.
Which begs the question — in nishidiot’s world, what happened to the depopulated eastern Europe?
– They all moved to Hollywood.
Vacation land for lawyers in love.
To be fair, I directed nishi to the RCP averages because an average of polls is better than looking at individual polls. That being said, Obama’s 1.4% margin now is nto all that significan this far away from the election, particularly as a national number, as opposed to the state polls. After all, the “election” itself is 50 state elections. And at the moment BO does not fare as well on a state-by-state basis, precisely due to the states with larger downscale white voting blocs.
If John F’n Kerry is an “intellectual” then I’m smarter than Einstein, Hawking, Bohr, Locke, Bacon, Plato, Socrates, Oppenheimer, Descartes, Pythagoras, combined.
I am smarter than bacon.
Karl,
The dynamic is going to really solidify as knowledge of BHO’s support of infanticide spreads. B16’s declaration the other day is just going to be reiterated and reinforced from now on. The impact will be strongest with observant Catholics (who appears to make up about 50% of those Catholics participating in the primaries) but the other ProLife people haven’t even fired their first shots yet.
BHO might win if Proglandia was actually a country but it’s not. It’s just a hallucination which recurrs on a quadrennial basis as the Democrat party lurches around, trying to deal with its multiple personality disorder. This year may actually turn out to be the worst ever for the Dems in that respect. Rendell wasn’t kidding about being only 50% of the way home wrt BHO’s unknown lack of quality.
1 – It’s a college campus, so the racial breakdown of support for various candidates may be different than in the general populace
2 – Michelle Obama is speaking. How many white people want to watch that? We know she’s a strong supporter of Jeremiah Wright.
MayBee, being smarter than Bacon is a pretty big deal, what with Skankspeare taking all the credit…
Mmmmmm – bacon.
The pig is a magical animal.
I have a problem with saying that what white males object to are “seemingly effete intellectuals.” First of all, I don’t think either Kerry or Obama “seem” all that effete. They aren’t built like Arnie, of course, but not many politicians are. Certainly GWB isn’t.
Second of all, that reduces the white male position to a visceral, non-intellectual reaction. It buys into the stereotype of beer-swilling rednecks, and I think that’s an unfair characterization. Real rednecks don’t vote.
Last of all, their policy recommendations might be described as effete, but I think the better way to describe them is self-sacrificing. What the white male sees in increased social services, higher taxes, affirmative action, and defeat in Iraq is that he is being asked to sacrifice himself to some other group. Calling the policies “effete” doesn’t really capture that, and it makes it sound like some knee-jerk homophobic reaction, which is exactly what the other side would like it to sound like.
MayBee – Definitely smarter than bacon. But, do you have a bacon bra?
Oh, see, I thought she was talking about Kevin. Little question there.
Ards – I do not think effette sounds homophobic. It sounds positively French.
The pig is a magical animal.
“Are you the owner of this oracular pig?”
Ards – I do not think effette sounds homophobic. It sounds positively French.
It doesn’t have the same root, but it is often used as a synonym for effeminate.
Anyway, I thought it sounded British. Sink me, but I did.
Yes and no. I have blogged here about the large segment of voters generally who are more affected by things like character and personal qualities than issue positions. Indeed, they are a big part of McCain’s success. But the effete image probably would not turn folks off by itself. The reality is that image — whether it be Adlai Stevenson, Dukakis, Kerry, etc. — ends up seeming to voters as consistent with a certain brand of left-wing politics, particularly on cultural issues like gun rights, capital punishment, dovish foreign policy, etc. The effete image is non-verbal communication which cues folks to those underlying issues.
Obama lost me at “democrat”.
But McCain didn’t get my *gack* money, and my vote in November, until I read Obama’s book.
Wright was more a confirmation of previously arrived at judgments. In addition to being a racist and hate monger, of course.
The effete image is non-verbal communication which cues folks to those underlying issues.
But how is it communicated if non-verbally? If you compare GWB to either Gore or Kerry, he does not posess anything like an imposing physical presence. Indeed, I don’t think many male voters had a high opinion of GW’s manliness at the beginning of his first term. The cowboy image developed over time as they saw his persistence in pursuing America’s enemies. What they voted for were the policies he espoused, which seemed much more in their best interests.
I would suggest that the “effete” label is applied after the voters know something about what the candidate stands for, and often in spite of appearances. In spite of the fact that Kerry had actually been in a war, we knew he wasn’t the man to lead the country to victory, not because of an appearance of effeteness, but because of what the man had actually said.
The notion that the label is based on mere appearance trips up candidates who attempt to dispel the labe by doing something manly for the cameras. Picture Dukakis trying to bolster his defense credentials by posing in a tank with his little helmet on. It was the contrast between that bit of posing and his actual beliefs that made him appear twice as weak as he did before. If Obama had bowled a 300, the white male voters would have simply shrugged and said, “so what?” If his 37 is significant at all, it is only because it confirms an idea they already had based on Obama’s stated beliefs (not to mention his mentor’s beliefs).
Shorter me: Voter perceptions are shaped, not by images, but by what they think about the substance of the candidates’ views.
Ards, body language isn’t about the size of the font.
– Myself, I’m thinking more along these lines in regards to this effete’ issue.
– I look a GWB, I see a guy I’d be comfortable with in just about any setting, figuring he “looks” like he can handle the business end of a jointed bucktail lure, or chamber rounds in and 12 gauge without blowing his foot off.
– Kerry, by contrast, even assuming I had no idea he shot himself in the ass twice with grenade launchers, just “looks” to me like the kind who, while he doesn’t have a problem touching the worm, he’d be prone to gouging his thumb or putting someones eye out trying to cast.
– Its not, at least for me, a feminish effete’, but more a “dumb ass inexperience in maleness fundamentals” effeteness. The guy no one wants to stand too close to if hes handling sharp objects.
Obama is losing to McCain in the RCP averages in Florida, Ohio and Pennsylvania. The last man to win the presidency without carrying two of those states was JFK, 48 years ago. I can’t find anybody who won it without carrying any of the three, although Samuel Tilden in 1876 came close.
Which is precisely what I think Ardsgaine doesn’t “get” about this subject.
#32 and #34:
I think that is correct. Sen. Obama is not effete as in effeminate, not in the slightest and I would laugh at anyone who suggested that construction. It is just that he appears to be more comfortable with the drawing room than the gun room. Recall as BBH implied, John Kerry tossing the football around – just not comfortable with the outward conventions of most working class and middle class American males, while George Bush can pitch and do a decent job of it at his age.
Big Bang Hunter wrote: I look a GWB, I see a guy I’d be comfortable with in just about any setting, figuring he “looks†like he can handle the business end of a jointed bucktail lure, or chamber rounds in and 12 gauge without blowing his foot off.
No, you don’t get that from looking at GW. You get it from what you’ve read about him, and from the way he talks, and what he says.
– Kerry, by contrast, even assuming I had no idea he shot himself in the ass twice with grenade launchers, just “looks†to me like the kind who, while he doesn’t have a problem touching the worm, he’d be prone to gouging his thumb or putting someones eye out trying to cast.
So what happens if you meet a leftwing politician that knows how to bass fish? Will you swoon into his arms? Or what if there’s a rightwing politician who is good on the issues, but doesn’t know one end of a shotgun from the other? You won’t vote for him?
McGhee wrote: Which is precisely what I think Ardsgaine doesn’t “get†about this subject.
So should I admit, then, that the majority of white male voters really are shallow numbskulls who don’t care about the substance of a politician’s beliefs so long as he can bowl in the 200s? I have a higher opinion of them than that.
Trust me, if Obama had bowled a 300, you guys would be talking about what an effete sport bowling is. Not every guy is good at every sport. Take the defensive line of your favorite pro football team deep sea fishing, and see how many of them know how to use a rod and reel. Be sure to call all the ones who hook themselves effete girly-men, and we’ll see if you can swim back to shore. No, where Obama is concerned, you got the effete part from what he believes, and now you’re applying it to what he does. His ideas are enough to damn him. Calling him effete is both counterfactual and unproductive. Focus on his ideas.
He’s a lot more student council president than commander in chief is the idea I think. He could organize a hell of a bake sale I bet.
He reminds me of white chocolate macadamia nut cookies.
It is just that he appears to be more comfortable with the drawing room than the gun room.
Supposedly, he’s good at basketball. I don’t know. But saying that he’s not comfortable in the gun room could just mean that he is interested in sports other than hunting or target shooting. That would definitely play into the cultural differences between him and male white voters of the Appalachians, but it wouldn’t make him effete.
For some reason men just don’t like him a lot though. Especially white guys. You know who’s effete is that George Voinovich. All but wears a dress, that one.
Trust me, if Obama had bowled a 300, you guys would be talking about what an effete sport bowling is.
Bite me.
Trust me, if Obama had bowled a 300, you guys would be talking about what an effete sport bowling is.
Or maybe, “Who takes the Stanley Cup this year?”
For some reason men just don’t like him a lot though. Especially white guys.
Right, just like they tend to not like leftwing politicians in general. Me, I think it has something to do with feeling like the turkey on Thanksgiving when they hear a leftist open his mouth. But maybe you guys are right, and it’s just a backwoods prejudice against people who use good grammar.
No, but you’d still be talking out your ass.
You still don’t get it. This isn’t about being shallow numbskulls, it’s about understanding the depths of perception that go into any human being forming an opinion about someone who wants to be in a position of leadership over them.
Ards, you sound like the nitwit I encountered 12 years ago who claimed that as long as he espoused the right political views, Satan himself would get his vote.
@ #43
Go stuff yourself.
Ards – Everybody knows black people can’t swim, so there’s another sport out the window. Bryant Gumble said he doesn’t watch the Winter Olympics because there aren’t enough brothers participating, ruling out a bunch of other sports. Of course there are exceptions all over the place, I mean Willie Gault was a helluva bobsled pusher and opened a lot of doors.
Obama’s just got to pick his spots. Badminton sounds good to me.
If he’d bowled a 300, I would have wondered what composition ball he used.
I don’t have any gauge by which to measure his manliness. He seems to have had a cosmopolitan upbringing, far outside the range of “average”, but that means not much at all to me. He is married to an intelligent woman who obviously has a mind of her own and is not afraid to speak about what she’s thinking.
I see an intellectual, or at least an ambitious, talented, player, who happens to hold a lot of positions that I disagree with. Who has a track record (both public and self-documented) of philosophic and moral decisions that do not reflect well on somebody wanting to step into the presidency.
Effete? He’s no Sidney Blumenthal, Paul Begala, or Sandy Burglar. Thank goodness for small favors.
No, but you’d still be talking out your ass.
LOL. How did I get to be the enemy when I’ve been saying from post one that Obama’s ideas are crap? All I am objecting to is that anyone should waste time trying to pin a label on him that doesn’t fit.
You still don’t get it. This isn’t about being shallow numbskulls, it’s about understanding the depths of perception that go into any human being forming an opinion about someone who wants to be in a position of leadership over them.
And you still don’t get it. We tend to form those perceptions based on what we think of the person’s ideas. It would not matter how virile and robust a politician is if his policy ideals demand that we sacrifice ourselves to others, we will consider him effete, because accepting that self-immolation would make us effete.
Ards, you sound like the nitwit I encountered 12 years ago who claimed that as long as he espoused the right political views, Satan himself would get his vote.
And you sound like the last guy I debated who deliberately twisted my words. I have not said that moral character does not matter. We were talking about effeteness, not evilness. Who had a greater appearance of virility, Calvin Coolidge or Mussolini? Woodrow Wilson, or Stalin? Which one would you want as president? Ideas matter more than machismo. Effectiveness is also important, but I’ll take the guy with the right ideas, even if he lacks something in effectiveness. Obama, as I’ve said, is not that guy. His socialist ideals are crap. Enough said. The whole effeteness thing is just a distraction.
Hey, according to Iowahawk, Obama is supposed to be good at foosball.
– “So what happens if you meet a leftwing politician that knows how to bass fish? Will you swoon into his arms? Or what if there’s a rightwing politician who is good on the issues, but doesn’t know one end of a shotgun from the other? You won’t vote for him?
– I think you’re putting to fine a point on a single aspect of the whole “who do I vote for and why” process. How you see the other guy, presumably someone you’re about to vouch for in some sense, is at least one of your considerations, even if its a subconscious one.
– First off I have to see the guy or gal as not an outright fruitcake, like a Johnson, Farraro, Nixon, Carter, or a Kucinich. Then I listen to what he/she has to say about the temporal issues, particularly issues that have long term consequences. Then I look at which party hes affiliated with, and what their current bent is, Left, Moderate, Right.
– I don’t care about race or sex. I do care if he or she looks like he’d do a “Kerry” (hide in a conference room on 9/11). Try to determine if I think he can lead something, and react forcibly in times of crisis.
– Its the latter that would bring you to consider his “guyness”, or “galness”. Can they take a shot and deal. Tough-mindedness might be a better descriptor.
– Along time ago I learned that you can tell a lot about someone just by watching how well they can adapt to changing crowds and changing circumatsnaces.
– And I don’t think its a matter of education. That “effete’ intelligentsia” thing might somehow apply, but someone like say, Condi, is as educated as it gets, and I look at her and I don’t see effete’ in any sense of the word. Same with Hillery. No “effete'” there.
– Obama. Definitely effete vibs, but not in any fem way. So you tell me.
– If you don’t consider the whole package you’re over-simplifying.
If he’d bowled a 300, I would have wondered what composition ball he used.
lol.
I see an intellectual, or at least an ambitious, talented, player, who happens to hold a lot of positions that I disagree with. Who has a track record (both public and self-documented) of philosophic and moral decisions that do not reflect well on somebody wanting to step into the presidency.
Ditto.
Obama’s bad bowling — in a state that is big on bowling — is a visual gaffe as much as his bypassing the Philly Cheesesteak in favor of some yuppie dish. It’s like Kerry windsurfing and looking less than swift hunting. And it is in tone of voice in addition to content. People have certain stereotypes about national Democratic pols. These types of signifiers reinforce those stereotypes.
Obama claims he’s good at basketball. That sort of photo-op might play to other stereotypes, but he would probably look more like a regular guy in that setting. Instead, certain types of Dems just look bad trying to pander to blue-collar voters with whom they really don’t identify.
Ardsgaine insists on equating effete with effeminate, which is actualy a tertiary definition. The more common usage is weak or delicate, as if pampered. Dukakis in a tank looks weak. Kerry windsurfing looks pampered. Etc.
BTW, take a look at the qualities voters want in a President, by party.
Also Ardsgaine’s claim that:
…is not entirely true. Roughly 40-50% of voters think personal qualities are more important than issues.
You’ve got to be a foosball hero,
To get along with teh balding white guys…
He’s got my vote.
I think you’re putting to fine a point on a single aspect of the whole “who do I vote for and why†process. How you see the other guy, presumably someone you’re about to vouch for in some sense, is at least one of your considerations, even if its a subconscious one.
I grant that the other factors you’ve listed would be important if you had two candidates of even approximate quality in the realm of ideas. That’s not the case this year. Given the Democrats’ commitment to defeat in Iraq, McCain would have to start wearing a dress or something. I’m not entirely happy with his stance on global warming, or the strength of his commitment to free speech and capitalism, but there’s a war on and I have an old-fashioned notion that the president should be committed to victory when we’re fighting a war.
And you still don’t get it. We tend to form those perceptions based on what we think of the person’s ideas.
Wrong. In addition to what BBH said about oversimplifying, and at the risk of Mikey laughing at me, I do see Kerry as a little effeminate. It has nothing to do with size, hairiness, or sports knowledge; it just is
GW spends time at his ranch with a chainsaw, Kerry works himself into some tight spandex and mounts a bicycle.
GW says “Shit Cheney, you shot your lawyer!”, Kerry says “Can I get me a huntn’ licence?”
Obama is just kinda frail looking. The rumors about how his wife treat him and the way he catches on to bowling don’t make him seem too manly, but like much of the rest of Obama, there’s a whole lot we don’t know.
Oh, and to say anyone who notices the full measure of the candidate is going to be unduly influenced by the relatively minor consideration of “manliness” is making a magnificent leap of logic, and if followed by a pirouette, disqualifies you from being a conservative.
– “….and if followed by a pirouette, disqualifies you from being a conservative.
– Well hell yes…..Especially if you’re wearing a Tutu.
Both are elements of character, and both tell us things about how this guy would do as president.
Now, getting back to where you said this:
That, Ardsgaine, is what’s known as Talking Shit.
Don’t do it if you don’t want your head bitten off.
– And Ardss, you’re complaint list concerning McOlderthandirt is a good deal the same for many non-Lefties.
– I guess at one time he had some bigguns, but I’ve seen guys come out of that sort of adversity simply cowed. Not something you could put your finger on, just sort of a giving in, giving up sense you get about them. I sort of sense that in him, and some of his stances on the issues. I also think he has a tendency not to listen to the people that might otherwise support him.
– Now why that is isn’t clear to me. If its his “mavarik” side, or I know better ego, or just an old guys tendency to be somewhat withdrawn. the whole “open borders” pile of crap was a case in point.
– People were litterily screaming at everyone in Washington, but until the pols on the hill got swamped in angry emails, he just kept right on ignoring reality, and didn’t “get it” until his badly shaken coleges killed his bill.
– So yes. I have a lot of problems with “what will he do once hes in”. A lot of people do. But sense the RNC desided he was the best hope overall against the Dems and shoved him down our throats, we have no real choice.
– Just so you know, I’ll ne voting late in the day, watching the polling rsults, in Cal so I have that advantage, and if hes way ahead by that point I’ll write in Rudi. Sort of a small empty jesture I can smile about. Otherwise if its close I yank the crank for him.
People have certain stereotypes about national Democratic pols. These types of signifiers reinforce those stereotypes.
I agree. Jimmy Carter is the poster boy for that stereotype, and there’s no question at all that he was effete in the primary definition of the word: “Depleted of vitality, force, or effectiveness; exhausted.” I don’t see that same quality in Obama’s personality and I think Carter probably came across as less intellectual than Obama does, but, ideologically, they are twins, and that’s what counts.
Ardsgaine insists on equating effete with effeminate, which is actualy a tertiary definition. The more common usage is weak or delicate, as if pampered.
It’s the tertiary definition in the dictionary, but not necessarily in peoples’ minds. Anyway, I think “weak, delicate and pampered” is a pretty close approximation of effeminate. Here’s the dictionary definition:
1. (of a man or boy) having traits, tastes, habits, etc., traditionally considered feminine, as softness or delicacy.
2. characterized by excessive softness, delicacy, self-indulgence, etc.: effeminate luxury.
I don’t think Obama comes across as that, nor as lacking in force, vitality, etc. He comes across as bookish and intellectual, but so does pretty much every rightwing pundit I can think of. It’s Obama’s ideas that are sterile and worn out. In fact, I think the reason he is having so much success is because he doesn’t come across that way. He has camouflaged the exhaustion of socialist ideals under an energetic, optimistic exterior.
Baracky bowling is a lot condescending and patronizing really. It’s like you stupid white guys I know yous loves the bowling. That’s so dumb. They like beer and hanging out and getting away from the house. Baracky don’t understand white people at all. Harvard is probably a lot the problem, but also his segregationist hatey church what preaches how evil white people are probably doesn’t help. He should take a month off and maybe watch the Disney channel. And ABC Family. Oh. And lots and lots of CBS. Especially the sitcoms.
Also, chicken wings. I don’t really get why cause bowling alley wings are never near spicy enough but it’s true.
– darwins?…..Is that you feets?
And we’re just up to our armpits in them running for president, aren’t we?
The nearest thing to a pundit that might have run for the GOP nomination was Newt Gingrich. He didn’t get much support around here either.
Oh. feets is on vacation. He said for me to sort of look in is all. I got a little carried away today. Don’t tell.
– Oh. Ok then. mums the word. *snort*
Oh, and to say anyone who notices the full measure of the candidate is going to be unduly influenced by the relatively minor consideration of “manliness†is making a magnificent leap of logic, and if followed by a pirouette, disqualifies you from being a conservative.
That’s not what I said. I don’t imagine anyone here would be unduly influenced by the consideration of manliness if Obama could bench press 300 lbs, and shoot a half inch group at 100 yards, because ultimately that’s not what we care about. So why even bother? And why suggest that the white males who voted for Hillary did so because of a stupid bowling score, instead of because the guy spent twenty years with a mentor who shouted “God damn Amerikkka?” Doesn’t the latter pretty much trump everything else?
Here’s what you said:
So what happens if you meet a leftwing politician that knows how to bass fish? Will you swoon into his arms? Or what if there’s a rightwing politician who is good on the issues, but doesn’t know one end of a shotgun from the other? You won’t vote for him?
The drawing room and the gun room were/are in the same house. A man was supposed to be able to be comfortable in either.
There is this word, ‘metaphor’; I suggest you go look it up.
Baracky bowling is a lot condescending and patronizing really.
Yes, it is. Buddying up with people you don’t give a shit about is like that. In the ideology of the far left, the white male is the enemy. Obama can’t unsay that with a few frames of bowling. Screwing it up gives it an added snicker factor, and helps highlight the depth of the chasm between him and blue collar workers, but that chasm is there because of ideology. If they believed he was on their side, they wouldn’t care that he couldn’t bowl.
It’s not effete or effeminite, not in my opinion anyway, it’s a lack of gravitas though.
Obama strikes me as a would-be philosopher-king in the same mold as Al Gore. My expectaion is that any Obama administration would accomplish little by reason of analysis paralysis. Discussing or investigating a problem beyond “crunch time” when a decision has to be made in order to be effective.
And he can’t show me that that’s not the case–he has absolutely zero executive experience of any kind–he has run nothing and lead no one.
The bowling thing–if he’d done it well, he’d have been better served by it. Some might give points for appearing “real” for not being very good, but that’s not what I came away with–he just looked commical, and thre’s no gravitas in that. Better than windsurfing though–lots of real normal people actually do bowl. Windsurfing is such a niche activity….
Maybe he should try poker. Show us Obama with a green eyeshade at a baize covered table under a bare bulb bluffing ona broken straight and maybe we can see how he might not be taken for a sucker by Kim or Ahmadinejahd. He doesn’t dare do anything more physical than bowling though–he’d blow away in a stiff breeze inf Michelle didn’t keep ahold of him.
here it is. The buff pretty guy tries to spin it best he can, but just his sponsoring the video made it seem even more gayer.
It might have, if he hadn’t talked about taking a shotgun to go deer hunting. How this defends your accusation that we would have been calling bowling an “effete” sport, I can’t guess.
Maybe I’m old fashioned, but I thought going to Paris and meeting with the North Vietnamese during the war, and slandering the men with whom you served were not qualities that would win votes. Evidently enough people agreed with me. Bush could have taken to wearing a pink tutu in public and he’d still have had my vote over John Kerry.
I don’t like repeating myself, but I did link upthread to a post which then links to all sorts of polling data showing that nearly half of voters are willing to admit to pollsters that they consider the personal qualities of the candidate more than the candidate’s issue positions (the real number may be higher).
Ardsgaine may not like that. I know I don’t like that. But not liking it does not make it any less true. Note that this does not mean that people who focus more on personal qualities do not care at all about issues, merely that they care more about personal qualities.
Ardsgaine may not see Obama as effete, but others do, including some of his supporters. For example, Jeff Stein:
Thank you for your perspective. Here is another perspective. I believe the issue we are addressing in this year’s presidential election is one of color/gender and fear. In my opinion there is no way this country is ready for a Black Man to be the President of the United States, nor a Woman.
To be “culturally comfortable” with a President that is not White means that we as Americn citizens and voters need to look inside ourselves with the ugly truth. The truth is that there is racism, and sexism alive and well in our country. As I see it, FEAR is the overwhelming obstacle to any substanative change. Specifically, the fear that voters will experience when they are actually casting their vote………..alone in the voters booth, not when pollsters are asking their questions. The fear of the unknown. Republicans will highlight this issue and Democrats will not address it. The end result will be another Bush-style government for at least 4 more years. Let’s all do our individual work around sexism and racism, address our fears and myths about each other and make this country stronger. No more hiding, repressing and denying our truth. In my judgement we all have some fear with each other; whites towards Blacks;Blacks towards Whites, Men towards Women and vice versa…………So much for my “preaching” I feel better