Ed Brayton is a freelance writer and speaker. He is the co-founder and president of 
That is the actual title of an inane commentary at the Worldnutdaily, this one from Craig R. Smith.
One would think when millions of Americans campaign for and contribute to a virtually unknown commodity like Obama, it would create within the candidate a sense of awe: A humility that would overwhelm the average person, an outpouring of love and support which might bring a mere mortal to tears, a heart so filled with gratitude the candidate would thank the American people for the vote of confidence.Not Obama - quite the opposite.
When he takes the stage, there is an air of arrogance I have never sensed from anyone else in a similar situation. There is a tone of pompousness and entitlement. One gets the sense that Obama feels he is doing his attendees a favor for allowing them in his presence. His body language screams, "I am better than you." His confidence is not quiet. His soaring rhetoric is accompanied by the dropping of the final syllable or vowel. His almost preacher-like twang is devoid of even the slightest shred of modesty.
Right. Because popular politicians that one disagrees with are always "arrogant" while those that one agrees with are always humble. I've got news for you, Mr. Smith. Write this down and memorize it: anyone who runs for president has an ego the size of Jupiter. There are no humble people in politics at that level; there can't possibly be. Oh sure, they give speeches talking about their humility, but you should take that as seriously as you do their promises to spend more money and cut your taxes. You cannot possibly believe that you are the right person to be in the single most powerful position in the world and not have a gigantic ego.
But this is my favorite bit of idiocy in the column:
I rest rather well knowing that whether it is voting for mayor, congressman, senator, president or even American Idol contestants, Americans always get it right. They are not easily deceived. They know a trick when they see one. They can smell a phony a mile away. And while the illusionist assistants in the media are working overtime to convince America their man, Barack, can lead the country to a new world, they know better. Americans are far more intelligent than the media understands, and this November they are going to get a huge lesson on that intelligence.
The average American is a clueless, ignorant dolt; and you, Craig R. Smith, are living proof of that. Americans can smell a phony and always get it right in rejecting those phonies? One wonders what color the sky is in the universe this git inhabits.
Politics
Comments
As Stephanie Miller said so well yesterday on her show, the conservatives are madly thumbing through their thesauruses (thesauri?) looking for every synonym for 'uppity' to be found.
Posted by: TikiHead | August 6, 2008 9:36 AM
To be fair, if you're in WND's target demographic, Obama most likely is better than you.
Posted by: MartinM | August 6, 2008 9:41 AM
It's simple logic. This guy is undoubtedly a Bush supporter. And if you think Bush was the right choice, you pretty much have to think that about anyone ever elected.
Posted by: Taz | August 6, 2008 9:43 AM
D'ya think he might be implying that Obama is uppity?
Posted by: Dunc | August 6, 2008 9:47 AM
Could this guy really be that stupid? Or does he just simply not care whether what he said matches reality or not, so long as it fits his purpose?
Posted by: Wes | August 6, 2008 9:52 AM
No far, MartinM, that's what I was going to say!
As far as "American always get it right"—I guess this guy was a fan of Clinton, then, and Jimmy Carter, and Ted Kennedy, and...Barack Obama, who of course was elected senator...oh....
Posted by: nicole | August 6, 2008 10:01 AM
Obama acts like a confident adult, and this asshat calls him "arrogant" and is clearly filled with fear and hatred for him. Meanwhile, George W. Bush can barely form complete sentences, and acts like a ten-year-old braggart talking down to eight-year-olds, and that's perfectly okay with the WND/Jesus Camp crowd.
What more evidence do we need that these "Christians" are nothing but overgrown petulant children trying to drag everyone else down to their level?
If anyone really needs more evidence of the depth of their fear and hatred for Obama, here's a site calling him the Antichrist. No, seriously...
http://barackobamaantichrist.blogspot.com/
And as pig-ignorant as the author of that little hate-site is, most of the respondents are even dumber, and more obvious in their bigotry.
Posted by: Raging Bee | August 6, 2008 10:07 AM
Posted by: James Hanley | August 6, 2008 10:12 AM
That's beside the fact that GWB was born into wealth, privilege, and influence, and claims outright that his policies are sanctioned by none other than God himself. Despite all this, he is apparently not "elitist" because... well, you see... he's an idiot.
The fact that stupidity passes as a remedy for arrogance in American political discourse says something very worrisome about our culture.
Posted by: DaveL | August 6, 2008 10:17 AM
Anyone remotely qualified to be President is better than me.
Posted by: CJColucci | August 6, 2008 10:26 AM
I think the real take-away messages here are that Smith believes:
1. The American people totally got it right when they elected Bill Clinton.
2. The American people also totally got it right when they overwhelmingly kicked the Republicans to the curb in the 2006 elections.
Smith is obviously actually arguing that Obama is the correct choice in spite of his apparent arrogance.
Posted by: Kevin S | August 6, 2008 10:36 AM
Really, it's so digusting that someone running for president is acting so presidential. Honestly! What is he thinking? He should forget what year it is, slur his speech and forget his own positions more often.
Posted by: Spook | August 6, 2008 10:40 AM
er... just a random thought, but how would you get the winner of American Idol "wrong"? It's not a singing contest, it's a popularity contest. The winner is the most popular person in the contest. It's really not about who has the pipes for it, if they had the pipes they'd be putting in their time working toward becoming a true professional, not a flash in the pan pop-star. They don't even claim it's about the best singer.
wow, didn't realize I'd be so ranty about that... sorry.
Posted by: kodiak | August 6, 2008 10:47 AM
I've worked in marketing long enough to know, fooling people is easy; it's getting them to see the truth that's difficult.
Interestingly, in psychological studies of marketing we've found that generally it's the people who think they are resistant to manipulation that are most easily manipulated. It's the folks who acknowledge that they can be duped who turn out to be the most resistant.
Posted by: Abby Normal | August 6, 2008 10:54 AM
Recent research has shown that repeating a falsehood often enough makes people come to believe it, even if the repetition is in the context of trying to debunk it. This comes as no surprise to anyone who's ever known other human beings, but it does help explain the Republican strategy over the last twenty years or so. It doesn't matter if it's true, it only matters that it's "truthy" and that you repeat it loud and often.
Posted by: Jeff Hebert | August 6, 2008 10:59 AM
"When he takes the stage, there is an air of arrogance I have never sensed from anyone else in a similar situation."
Was anybody else reminded of:
"I sense something, a presence I've not felt since......."?
Yep, they've used up racial bigotry and muslim-fear. Now they're using The Force.
Posted by: Jason Failes | August 6, 2008 11:01 AM
Well, Obama got off his ass and got into politics to try to get some good things done, and now he's taking on the Republicans more effectively than any Democrat before him...so yeah, he IS better than me. I can live with that. I can vote for it too.
Posted by: Raging Bee | August 6, 2008 11:03 AM
Accusations of arrogance coming from the party of the wealthy and entitled. Priceless.
Of course, we all know what he's really saying; "Where does that boy get off running for president? As a cracker, I'm better than him by far." Disgusting racist filth.
Posted by: Julian | August 6, 2008 11:12 AM
Here is the thing - I've seen Bush give speeches and talks prior to him becoming president. And while not a gifted orator by any means - he actually came across as a confident reasonably intelligent guy. Then you see him now and its downright painful to watch. Every phrase he utters is a talking point which he frequently gets out of the wrong order. What the frak happened?
Posted by: yoshi | August 6, 2008 11:28 AM
Posted by: Taz | August 6, 2008 11:35 AM
Re Obama being perceived as a phony and an elitist, I liked Maureen Dowd's recent column comparing Obama to Mr. Darcy, the U.S. to Elizabeth Bennet, and McCain to . . . Wickham.
Posted by: Anna K. | August 6, 2008 11:53 AM
Act humble and we'll call you weak. Act confident and we'll call you elitist. Catch-22.
Posted by: Scott Hanley | August 6, 2008 11:58 AM
I can't help but enjoy the irony of someone writing for the Worldnutdaily, where it is an accepted maxim that its staff and fans are better (morally and otherwise) than anyone who disagrees with them, complaining about a high-level politician thinking he's better than his potential electorate. Aside from the glaring hypocrisy of this position, it truly boggles the mind that leadership is apparently a quality that they are condemning in Obama.
Of course, this "Obama thinks he's better than you" nonsense is a red herring. No matter what Obama says or does, no matter how he conducts himself, he will be criticized mercilessly by these people. Why? Simply because he's not on their side of the culture wars in which they are constantly trying to fight.
Posted by: Sadie Morrison | August 6, 2008 12:06 PM
It's these fundy Christianists that are the biggest dupes. All an authentic Anti-Christ has to tickle their ears with is: "I love America; I am a born-again, like you; I hate gays and the UN," and their vote is assured.
It doesn't matter if the guy speaking these things is Rev. Moon or Shrub hisself - they will pull the lever and get the leader they deserve.
Posted by: SharonB | August 6, 2008 12:26 PM
As Jon Stewart pointed out a while back (possibly in relation to Kerry), damn right he thinks he's better than us. And a good thing, too. He wants to be leader of the free world, for God's sake - you don't get much more arrogant than that. Unless you're Fred Thompson, you don't run for president thinking you won't do a better job than anyone else. And don't we want a president to be orders of magnitude better than us?
Posted by: Ginger Yellow | August 6, 2008 12:43 PM
Future WND columns by this guy:
Obama's Breath: It Really Stinks!
Obama Admits That He Doesn't Floss Daily
Obama Fails to Meet RDA Recommendations for Daily Fiber Intake
Posted by: Adrienne | August 6, 2008 12:46 PM
Wow, DaveL....that comment was spot on, but now I'm really depressed.
Posted by: Gretchen | August 6, 2008 12:59 PM
A number of commenters have already pointed it out, but one more grain of sand on this beach:
I spend 2 hours a day getting riled up reading blogs. Maybe I'll post something on my own blog, but probably not. I'm one privileged lazy-assed mo-fo. Good lord, I hope Obama is better than me!
Posted by: Jonathan | August 6, 2008 1:05 PM
"The public that elected both Ronald Reagan and Bill Clinton can "smell a phony a mile away? Then both of these guys must have been several miles away from the public when campaigning."
That's what the TeeVee is for.
Posted by: octopod | August 6, 2008 1:16 PM
Almost preacher-like...so he hasn't reached the true heights of arrogance where even reality is swept away with the wave of one hand in front of awe-inspired audiences expecting salvation.
Posted by: Richard Ei | August 6, 2008 1:17 PM
Love it: "...air...tone...sense...body language...twang..."
Come on WorldNetDaily -- can you seriously not find any REAL things wrong with Obama?
Posted by: JRQ | August 6, 2008 1:19 PM
All the Obama kool-aid drinkers on this site are hilarious. I am no fan of McCain, but his recent commercials pretty effectively satirized the nuttiness surrounding Obama's candidacy. The guy was essentially a nobody and now he is somewhere between a rock star and the messiah with lefties. What has he accomplished that he deserves that kind of regard? Some of you rip on Bush for being a bad speaker, but have you heard Obama when he speaks off the cuff? He is an excellent speaker when he has a teleprompter, but not so good when he actually has to come up with his own words. The guy is an empty suit making empty promises he has to know he can't keep. On top of that, he is just ignorant on important things like economics. And all the lefties worship him like he's the second coming or something. It is absolutely amusing, except for the fact that he might actually get elected.
Posted by: mroberts | August 6, 2008 2:01 PM
Unfortunately, your complete lack of reading comprehension and reasoning ability is not.
Posted by: Gretchen | August 6, 2008 2:06 PM
>> All the Obama kool-aid drinkers on this site are hilarious.
Unfortunately, your complete lack of reading comprehension and reasoning ability is not. >>
OK Gretchen, give me 10 specific reasons why Obama is the best presidential candidate.
Posted by: mroberts | August 6, 2008 2:07 PM
mroberts -
Plenty of times, both answering audience questions and in debates. But he had one time when he was tired and fumbled an answer, someone put it on YouTube, and it became a right-wing talking point. That's all you conservatives ever do - wait for the next talking point to be handed down on talk radio or Fox news and then parrot it endlessly.Posted by: Taz | August 6, 2008 2:12 PM
The stunning thing, mroberts, is that your response illustrates my comment perfectly. I don't think Obama is the best presidential candidate, and you bloody well know it. Noting the stupidity of what some Republicans are saying about Obama is not the same thing as getting down on your knees and worshiping the man. "These guys are saying stupid hateful things about that guy" is not the same as saying "That guy is great," and any person with third grade reading and reasoning skills can tell the difference. So tell me-- are you a liar, or a moron? Those are the only conclusions possible from your interpretation of the comments on this blog.
In answer to your question, by the way-- most people here would probably vastly prefer Obama as a president to McCain, but that doesn't mean they love the man. This is because, as I think Raging Bee put it, McCain is actively evil whereas Obama is more passively so. But given that this has been explained to you about fifty times already, I don't expect it to sink in now either.
Posted by: Gretchen | August 6, 2008 2:15 PM
Seriously, why are people still trying to argue with mroberts?
Posted by: Sadie Morrison | August 6, 2008 2:17 PM
>> The stunning thing, mroberts, is that your response illustrates my comment perfectly. I don't think Obama is the best presidential candidate, and you bloody well know it. >>
Relax Gretchen, I DON'T know it. Sorry if I'm not spending every minute of the day waiting for you to post on Obama. Why you are getting so crazy about it is beyond me. Relax. Maybe you don't like Obama as much as the people fainting as he speaks, great. Still, I don't understand why so many lefties are so enamored with a guy that has hardly done anything. And if you don't think he is the best man for the job, are you still going to vote for him? Sounds like you intend to do the whole "lesser of two evils thing".
Posted by: mroberts | August 6, 2008 2:21 PM
>> Seriously, why are people still trying to argue with mroberts? >>
Oh sorry Sadie, is this blog just supposed to be an echo chamber where you all get cheer for each others posts?
Posted by: mroberts | August 6, 2008 2:23 PM
Why would I want to vote for someone who's not better than me?
Posted by: gjbivin | August 6, 2008 2:24 PM
mroberts,
I think the point of most of the comment on thread were that regardless of what you think of Obama it's meaningless to call a presidential candidate arrogant, because to run for president is to be, by definition, arrogant. It's like saying "Pffft, that worlds strongest man contestant sure is impressed with his own strength." Yeah, duh.
Second, to point out that a presidential candidate thinks he's better than you as a negative, entirely misses the point of electing a president. Don't you *want* someone who *is* better than? Someone, "elite", you could say. I sure as hell do. Again, it's like saying "Boy, that pilot *thinks* he's so much better than me at flying this plane. My buddy Joe is great to hang out with at the bar. I'd much rather he were flying, it'd be so much more fun." You can see how you would run into trouble.
Posted by: MyPetSlug | August 6, 2008 2:35 PM
With the possible exception of Jimmy Carter, who I'm convinced is simply too decent a human being to have been re-elected against a two-bit actor with one of the biggest egos in recent memory. Sad to say, too many Amurricans seem to want someone with an overblown ego in charge.
Posted by: themadlolscientist, FCD | August 6, 2008 2:36 PM
>> I think the point of most of the comment on thread were that regardless of what you think of Obama it's meaningless to call a presidential candidate arrogant, because to run for president is to be, by definition, arrogant. I >>
I disagree. I don't think arrogance is becoming of anybody. An arrogant person is one who doesn't listen to anybody else and often makes bad decisions as a result. Virtually every arrogant person I have met has, in fact, been a complete fool and a most disagreeable person to be around.
Posted by: mroberts | August 6, 2008 2:42 PM
An arrogant person is one who doesn't listen to anybody else and often makes bad decisions as a result.
You keep using that word. I don't think it means what you think it means.
Posted by: CJColucci | August 6, 2008 2:50 PM
mroberts,
It is true that arrogant people often have inflated opinions of themselves and their own abilities, but not always. Sometimes people are arrogant for good reason, for example, a lot of professional athletes are *really* good at what they do and very arrogant. I would say it's safe to say Tiger Woods is arrogant. He knows he's the best golfer in the world, but damned if he hasn't earned that right.
Also, we're not talking about people you meet off the street here. We're talking about people who are auditioning for arguably *the most important job in the world*. To declare to the world that you think you deserve that job is to declare yourself arrogant. Obama and McCain didn't get written in. They both stood up and said "Pick me! Pick me!".
Let's be honest, if one was really humble, don't you think they would be trying to help someone they thought could do a better job than they could get elected and not run themselves? Or not needing the attention, they could work hard and help behind the scenes?
Posted by: MyPetSlug | August 6, 2008 3:07 PM
OK, the word parsing is getting a little ridiculous. Guys, my definition of arrogant is the commonly accepted one, as follows from dictionary.com:
1. making claims or pretensions to superior importance or rights; overbearingly assuming; insolently proud: an arrogant public official.
2. characterized by or proceeding from arrogance: arrogant claims.
1. Having or displaying a sense of overbearing self-worth or self-importance.
2. Marked by or arising from a feeling or assumption of one's superiority toward others: an arrogant contempt for the weak. See Synonyms at proud.
having or showing feelings of unwarranted importance out of overbearing pride; "an arrogant official"; "arrogant claims"; "chesty as a peacock"
If this definition does not apply, then how about you pick a new word that does? Sorry, but being described as the above is NOT a compliment. Good leaders are not people who fit those definitions. Believe it or not, it is possible to be absolutely great at something, be aware of it, and still be a humble person. Arrogant people - as defined in the above definitions - are often complete fools. They are often so blinded by how great they think they are that they have no clue they are actually complete idiots.
Posted by: mroberts | August 6, 2008 3:15 PM
I agree with mroberts here on arrogant as not being a particularly good trait, but I think slug is absolutely correct in that we cannot expect anyone trying for the role of POTUS to lack that characteristic. While I also agree that I would rather have leaders that aren't arrogant, I don't think it's crippling with respect to POTUS, since I don't think the President ever functions as a leader in the same sense that a Battalion Commander or a laboratory head does. It's a much more detached leadership, I think.
Posted by: Josh | August 6, 2008 3:29 PM
I wish republicans would just cut the shit out and say what they think : Obama is an uppity black "boy" that should be put back in his place. Then we can confront this for what it is, pure and simple racism.
Oh wait, that would require them to actually be honest.
Posted by: Coriolis | August 6, 2008 3:40 PM
>> I wish republicans would just cut the shit out and say what they think : Obama is an uppity black "boy" that should be put back in his place. Then we can confront this for what it is, pure and simple racism. >>
Ed, here's more proof for your statement "The average American is a clueless, ignorant dolt . . ." What is really sad is that there are national figures who say the same crap - like the Governor of New York, who recently implied in a speech that if you don't vote for Obama, you are a racist.
Posted by: mroberts | August 6, 2008 3:53 PM
MyPetSlug wrote:
"Let's be honest, if one was really humble, don't you think they would be trying to help someone they thought could do a better job than they could get elected and not run themselves?"
You mean like Dick Cheney?
Posted by: KeithB | August 6, 2008 3:53 PM
Posted by: Flavin | August 6, 2008 3:58 PM
mroberts,
I'm not trying to spin arrogance as a good thing. My point was only that it's an accurate description of everyone that runs for Prez and that arrogance is not necessarily mutually exclusive with ability, i.e., you can be arrogant and highly skilled.
Posted by: MyPetSlug | August 6, 2008 4:02 PM
mroberts wrote:
mroberts, I'm not Gretchen, but I sure as heck intend to vote for Obama, despite thinking Bill Richardson would have a been a much better Democratic nominee (I didn't particularly like Hillary Clinton).
So hell yes I intend to vote for the "lesser of two evils", because why would I choose a much worse evil (McCain) in this case when I don't have to!?
Yeah, many leftists are enamored of him....probably because they think he has a real chance of being elected president, and that makes them excited. After eight years of the current theocrat-cum-clown in the office and all of the havoc and awfulness he's managed to wreak on our country and abroad, especially with starting a pointless and expensive war, thinking that the opposite party might have a shot at reversing some of that damage is a pretty exciting prospect! That doesn't make us "kool aid drinkers", it makes us optimists.
Posted by: Adrienne | August 6, 2008 4:05 PM
mroberts
Just out of curiousity, is your boss a female? You seem to have an inferiority complex. Anyone who has a take-charge attitude will come across as arrogant. I would expect the president of this country to emulate that, whether he is in fact arrogant or not.
Posted by: pensy | August 6, 2008 4:09 PM
>> Just out of curiousity, is your boss a female? You seem to have an inferiority complex. >>
Wow, weird question. I have an inferiority complex?? You give yourself WAAAAAAAY to much credit if yo think you can discern that from a few short posts on a blog.
>> Anyone who has a take-charge attitude will come across as arrogant. I would expect the president of this country to emulate that, whether he is in fact arrogant or not. >>
Utterly false. To be a good leader who can "take charge" does not require being a jerk. Some of the best leaders I have known and worked for were actually very humble and modest people. If you think that to be a good leader you have to get into people's faces, then you have no clue. Try it out and see how it works for you. Most bosses I have had that were like that ended up either fired, or very nearly so.
Posted by: mroberts | August 6, 2008 4:15 PM
mroberts said:
Just thought that bore repeating.
Posted by: Abby Normal | August 6, 2008 4:18 PM
Oh Abby, your wit and cleverness must be legendary in your own mind. I know you are trying to cleverly use my own words against me, but you could ask anybody that knows me and the last thing they would say is that I am arrogant. Don't know how you think you know differently just from limited interaction over the internet.
Posted by: mroberts | August 6, 2008 4:24 PM
I'm afraid that this applies far more to you than it has to Obama.
Obama has had a decent career as a community organizer. In the state legislature of Illinois, he was able to ram home a reform of police procedures to videotape confessions and interrogation. In the US Senate, he was worked and has had some success in blocking nuclear proliferation. In doing so, he has made a point of working with party opponents and adjusting legislation to satisfy the concerns of opposition.
That's not counting his ability to mobilize mass support for him--in a politician, that's a feature, not a bug.
I don't see arrogance coming from that. It's a decent career, and by no means an incompetent one. Past presidents have come from similar beginning or even more modest (I'm thining of a Republican senator from Illinois in the mid 19th Century).
Posted by: gwangung | August 6, 2008 4:28 PM
A) Your interactions on the internet ARE you. They're your behavior. They come from you.
B) Your behavior on the Internet is arrogant and clueless. Perhaps YOU should pray and consider that behavior. They are something that comes from you and the only thing that WE can observe. They are the fruits that you are judged by. It's a cop-out to say, "But that's not me in real life"
Posted by: gwangung | August 6, 2008 4:34 PM
In that limited interaction, consisting of hundereds of comments on a diverse array of topic, yes, you come across to me as arrogant. It's up to you if you'd like to accept that as feedback or discount it.
Posted by: Abby Normal | August 6, 2008 4:36 PM
I'm afraid the arrogant and the foolish will discount that feedback.
Posted by: gwangung | August 6, 2008 4:37 PM
Posted by: Flavin | August 6, 2008 4:39 PM
>> B) Your behavior on the Internet is arrogant and clueless. >>
Gwangung, it doesn't matter what I say, I will always be arrogant and clueless to you because you don't like me because of my views. Your statement is just idiotic. I honestly would be willing to sit and have a beer with any of you at any time and have a nice conversation. But many of you on this blog HATE me simply because my views are different. There is no way I could possibly be seen positively by people like that. And oh yeah, I'll be sure to spend some time praying about it. The last thing I would want is for gwangung to think anything bad about me. Anything you want me to pray for gwangung?
Posted by: mroberts | August 6, 2008 4:42 PM
>> Perhaps you act like a different person on the internet than you do otherwise. >>
Who knows. I argue against people who say pretty vicious things about me and my faith, and I'm the bad guy. I've been called an "f'ing idiot" an "f'ing a-hole", a "homophobe", and a "bigot" on this blog. People have implied that I am a racist and a closet homo. One guy even said some things that could be construed as directed at my wife - very uncool. On top of that, people on this blog have intentionally used the name of Jesus as a form of blasphemy just because they know it pisses me off, and then they say they have no respect for me or my views or my faith, and I'M the bad guy. I'm the intolerant and "arrogant" one. LOL. Not that I really care what they say about me, but I do find it amazing. Do I argue forcefully? YES. But I have NEVER been as vicious as what is directed at me by many on this blog. Oh well, what are you gonna do.
Posted by: mroberts | August 6, 2008 5:00 PM
mrroberts - in terms of gauging Obama relative to McCain as our next president; do you think Obama is arrogant, and if so, so much that it should count as a strike against him when a reasonable person is considering his personal attributes?
I happen to be a Republican, very pro-business, and a Realpolitik hawk (e.g., Kissinger, Schultz, Baker III). Personal attributes is my second most important category when considering who gets my vote and Obama has gotten my serious attention given his attributes.
Re your defining Obama with your comments:
Your "empty suit" appears meritless to me. One may not agree with his policies and wish for more experience, but the evidence is overwhelming that he's brilliant (IQ, academic record, tenure at UofChicago, rise to the Senate, he's run a brilliant campaign against a near-incumbent within his party who ran a very good one) and the level of emotional intelligence he brings to both his speeches and ad hoc dialogues is higher than any I've encountered since Reagan. And he doesn't use his brilliance to avoid taking tough stands either, instead he uses it to properly frame complex issues and provides well-considered opinions that often go against the traditional Dem platform planks that gained Sen. Clinton 17+ million votes.
Though I'm a Republican who is very concerned about a number of Obama's policy positions, like the "lefties" (as if that's a bad thing) here and elsewhere, I am strongly attracted to him because he does not talk down to his audience like the typical U.S. politician, his positions are nuanced and well-thought out - reason based on optimal evidence appears to drive nearly all his positions with the exception of some of his domestic policy planks I doubt will ever get legislated anyway. He stands firmly in support of America's founding ideals framed within the Constitution on far more issues than the GOP currently does, and I believe he's smart enough to remain flexible to insure all his options are open if he were elected President along with bringing a level of pragmatism that I believe could be very important in terms of getting shit done (the last quality is one I think McCain also shares though I believe he's sold out to the extreme right wackos whereas Obama has positioned himself well to not sell out to the pacifistic and socialistic pressures in his party).
As evidenced by me, it's not just "lefties" that find Obama worthy of serious consideration. Sure I wish he'd have a successful governship term or two behind him, but I don't control that, I can only judge him against his opponent, while benchmarking him and McCain to preceding Presidents. And while he lacks the experience I'd prefer in a candidate, his personal characteristics put him in rarefied air relative to the Presidents who have served in the past, quite the opposite of your charges.
I encourage you and everyone to listen to the Meet the Press interview with Obama and Tom Brokaw regarding foreign policy. It was the best interview on foreign policy I've encountered since Bush 41/Baker III dialogues during the Persian War in the early 90's. Obama's responses to tough probing questions were pure pragmaticism with zero dose of ideology, refreshing to hear again after so many years of Christopher/Albright/Bush 43. Here's the transcript: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/25872804/ . NBC didn't have a link yet for the interview when I found this, they might now, it's up in YouTube in four segments: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lUp6EAh9CSg
While I haven't decided whom to vote for yet; Obama has already swept McCain in my scoring on defense of the constitution, foreign policy (even though I support the surge), and personal attributes (McCain is a moron which is tough for me to get past, I found Bush 43 much smarter than McCain in 2000 and nothing since has dissuaded me from that opinion except it's all relative given I never found Bush to be very bright). McCain has me on his positions on energy policy, spending, and potentially taxes, but given our last President, I think I will prefer one that defends American ideals and is smart over someone who happens to share my policy positions but sells out those ideals and deserved his ranking of 155 out of 159 at Annapolis.
Posted by: Michael Heath | August 6, 2008 5:19 PM
Ugarte: "You despise me, don't you, Rick?"
Rick Blaine: "If I gave you any thought, I probably would."
Posted by: CJColucci | August 6, 2008 5:31 PM
An arrogant person is one who doesn't listen to anybody else and often makes bad decisions as a result. Virtually every arrogant person I have met has, in fact, been a complete fool and a most disagreeable person to be around.
Quite right mroberts. Arrogance is not a quality to be admired.
It is disappointing that so many people seem to think it is a natural thing for a leader to be arrogant. This explains why we get ignorant jackasses like George W. Bush in the White House and likely will end up with another one in January.
Posted by: JED | August 6, 2008 5:56 PM
mroberts' last two comments on this thread can be paraphrased thus: poor me poor me poor me poor me poor me poor me poor me poor me poor me poor me poor me. Everyone here can do as they please, but keep in mind whom you are arguing with.
Posted by: Sadie Morrison | August 6, 2008 6:06 PM
mroberts said:
I've told you at least twice, probably more, than I do not support Obama and have no intention of voting for him. If you don't remember this, then maybe it should provide a clue that you should stop generalizing everyone who posts on this blog as thinking alike. Since you get so supremely irritated when someone assumes that you're a strict right-winger who supports McCain, maybe you should do others the same courtesy of not making gross generalizations about them.
I didn't "get crazy" the first time you lied, or the second, or the third, or the fourth. But if you keep on lying, exactly what kind of response do you expect? You've made a laughing stock of yourself here because of your continued outright misrepresentations of people ("You deny that Christians are ever forbidden their right to free speech"), and you deserve no better a response.
Step One: Identifying exactly which people are "fainting as Obama speaks."
Step Two: Address them. Not me.
No, as I have told you a thousand times already.
News flash: This is not you against a thousand politically homogeneous people. It's you against people who have a perception of nuance, who do not think in terms of black and white, who understand that criticizing someone is not the same as supporting their enemy. It's you against people who have a much greater reasoning capacity, and those people can have dramatically different political views amongst themselves. Until you comprehend this, you have no credibility whatsoever.
Posted by: Gretchen | August 6, 2008 6:52 PM
So, if Americans elect Obama in November, that will be another example of "Americans always get(ting) it right"?
Posted by: BC | August 6, 2008 8:53 PM
mroberts, for a guy who praises humility, you come across as pretty arrogant, too. You call everyone who disagrees with you about McCain being the better candidate an " Obama koolaid drinker."
I'm not fond of either candidate, but at least I don't assume you have to be cult-stupid to prefer Obama to McCain.
The funny thing is, I get the feeling you'd really like people here to respect your opinion, but you can't seem to stop yourself from writing in a way that causes everyone to think that you're stuck at the intellectual level of a 7th grader.
You don't impress anyone here, you're just an annoying little mosquito that people can't help swatting.
Posted by: James Hanley | August 6, 2008 10:05 PM
mroberts wrote:
There's a reason for that; all of those quotes apply quite well to you.
Posted by: Ed Brayton | August 6, 2008 10:13 PM
Hm. Someone who does this, all confident in "knowing" his opponent's position, could rightly be called arrogant, right?
Posted by: gwangung | August 6, 2008 11:24 PM
"...anyone who runs for president has an ego the size of Jupiter."
Or Tubs' ass. Same difference.
"The average American is a clueless, ignorant dolt..."
Whence your elitism, Tubs? Is it because you can put away a dozen powdered jelly dough nuts in record time? It can't be anything else.
Anyway, Tubs, I think your motto (and the motto of the low-watt bulbs you tend to attract to your blog like flies to a turd) should be "Elitism: not just for the accomplished anymore!"
Posted by: Eunomius | August 6, 2008 11:51 PM
Posted by: DingoJack | August 7, 2008 12:57 AM
Yes. I would really prefer my biracial American brothers when running for President to sound like Snoop Dog, walk like Steppin Fetchit, be shy and eschew the limelight like Edward Scissorhands and be dumb as a bag of hammers....otherwise I am intimidated and confused, thereby giving him the best possible leg up to becoming President of the United States.
(P.S. IF you actually read the book, Mr. Darcy is redeemed in the end, a completely misunderstood man, judged mainly and wrongly by eronneous information, spread by the jaw flappin lasses. He is, in fact, a very egregiously wronged party. The assumption of his arrogance was wrong headed, and....prejudiced. I think maybe Ms. Dowd skipped class and the Cliff Notes...)
Posted by: CityzenJane | August 7, 2008 1:34 AM
By the way where were all of these 'arrogance police' when George Bush said during this dispute about his actions:
GOP leaders told Bush that his hardcore push to renew the more onerous provisions of the act could further alienate conservatives still mad at the President from his botched attempt to nominate White House Counsel Harriet Miers to the Supreme Court.
"I don't give a goddamn," Bush retorted. "I'm the President and the Commander-in-Chief. Do it my way."
"Mr. President," one aide in the meeting said. "There is a valid case that the provisions in this law undermine the Constitution."
"Stop throwing the Constitution in my face," Bush screamed back. "It's just a goddamned piece of paper!"
Then went out to catch his round of unassuming put put golf on the White House lawn.
Posted by: CityzenJane | August 7, 2008 1:40 AM
Where are the arrogance police? I've read plenty of articles about the hubris of the Bush Administration, especially concerning the Iraq war. Too bad we haven't learned our lesson.
Posted by: JED | August 7, 2008 4:17 AM
The most arrogant thing I've heard any politician say publically in years was Dick Cheney's response to the news that two-thirds of the American public now opposed the Iraq war: "So?" But of course I now realise that this was nowhere near as bad as Obama, I mean, the way he stands, just this air about him, you can tell, or something.
Posted by: Der Bruno Stroszek | August 8, 2008 9:28 AM
Ed
With that in mind, what parts of a face most influence first impressions?
http://sayitbetter.typepad.com/say_it_better/2008/08/what-make-us-wa.html
Posted by: kare anderson | August 11, 2008 9:14 PM