Obama meets Bartlet
 

The following is a hypothetical conversation between Senator Barack Obama and President Jed Bartlet of the West Wing, presumably after he has left office. It was authored by West Wing creator Aaron Sorkin. Please, read the whole thing.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/21/op...hp&oref=slogin

I have to admit, I've always had a heterosexual man crush on the Bartlet character; perfect "aw shucks" father figure and simultaneously a singular mind. When Bartlet finally lets loose, I found myself nodding.

Would Obama finally taking on a strong offense piss off McCain supporters? Yes. Would it raliy independents and undecideds? YES. If Obama wants to win, he'll honestly have to stop pulling punches in this match and give all he's got.

So what do you make of this fictional conversation?

He doesn't have to get too negative, but shine the light of truth on what is going on, and what life under a McCain administration would look like and Obama would be doing better.

Actually, if Obama ever goes on Lou Dobbs TV show, he should give Obama that speech.

I loved this bit:

Holy cats - a good MoDo column! It's like a lunar eclipse or something - arriving once every year, two years or so, MoDo uses her unmatched powers of sarcastic, vapid bitchiness for good and actually produces something worth reading. I look forward to her February 5, 2010 article with great anticipation.

Funny how Mccain lived in a tiger cage for 5 years was left out, or that Mccain has seen more hardship than Obama has ever seen.

gotta love the rah rah section, go team

John McCain was allowed into Annapolis because of his last name, graduated at basically the bottom of his class, crashed 5 planes, and finally was captured in October of 1967. His only true accomplishment was not dying. I give him full credit for that, but it doesn't change the fact that he came from a rich family, and then married into money.

That fiction's probably being written right now by Dennis Miller. I envision McCain, Ted Nuggent and Chuck Norris all sitting around a camp fire chit chatting about the evils of the liberal media.

Rich family Will? Military families are loaded? They make a good living at the ranks his father achived, but rich I would hardly say that.

But then again anyone making more than what the unions steal is rich.

IMHO - This is really getting close to the bottom folks... from all sides.

Please assplain how it is fiction Tully, Was Mcain in a tiger cage? Was Obama beaten daily while his momma was living off the governments tit?

I see Rosie, Sean Penn, and Alex Baldwin sipping Starbucks in some art gallery thinking of ways to leave the country again if mccain wins.

Um... no career military man is rich. My father served as an Officer for 23 years. With Hazard pay, flight pay, and as an XO of a base of 30k people below him he got paid $50k. I make more than that with my first job out of college.

Oh yeah, and if you want to point out graduating at the bottom of classes.... look at our country's history. Grant, Admiral Bull Halsey, Stonewall Jackson, etc all graduated at the bottom of their class. Hell Carter finished 7% of his class and we see how crappy of a Presidency he had.

I'm simply making the point that the above piece regarding Obama meeting Barlet is a piece of fiction written by a writer of fiction. All I was saying was a fictional piece in McCains favor is probably currently be written by someone like Dennis Miller, also a writer of fiction.

I was not and am not making any attempt to state that McCain did not spend time in a POW camp. I might question whether he spent "five years in a tiger cage" solely because my understanding of a 'tiger cage' is it is a specific type of confinement/torture used by the VC. I'm not sure you could honestly say McCain spent five years in one.

But that's really not my point. My point was the piece in the OP was written by a well known liberal writer. You're simply not going to find positive statements regarding McCain in something written by Sorkin. If you want positive comments regarding McCain in a fictional account of an encounter that never happened you're going to have to wait for a conservative writer to write it, like Dennis Miller. Then we'll have people on the left pointing that the conservative author left out the positive points in Obama's bio. Which would bring this whole silly conversation to it's natural conclusion.

I would agree that McCain didnt come from a monied family....but rather a family of influence, at last enough influence to get him into the Naval Academy....with poor grades and a bad temper.

And then, as soon as he came home from Vietnam, quickly divorced his wife and married money to fund his foray into politics, built solely on his war "hero" status.

More power to him for pulling it off.

But, IMO, it is why he has no clue about the issues facing the "common" working family. Much like Bush and unlike Obama, Clinton and even Reagan, all of whom came from working class backgrounds and understood how the "economy" is a personal issue and a pocketbook issue, not a theory.

Oh...and Sorkin would make a great campaign communications strategist!

I don't know many informed liberals who think MoDo is one of them. She is most definitely not. She is queen socialite of the beltway class, immune to logic, informative writing, and being useful to humanity in any manner whatsoever.

My reference was, as I stated, to the part of the piece written by Sorkin. Not Dowd. That's why I stated it was "fiction written by a writer of fiction." I don't think of Maureen Dowd as a fiction writer, it's my understanding she writes opinion pieces for the NYT. You can argue all you want whether or not Sorkin is a liberal. My understanding is his been a heavy contributor to and, advocate of, liberal groups such as Moveon.org.

How true. It is obvious that he does nt have a grasp of the real world when he speaks. I am very afraid of what his position on issues will be.
-----Added 22/9/2008 at 11 : 42 : 19-----
Tully:

No issue that Mccain has suffered and that this affects his world view. However, that alone does not qualify him for the presidency any more than Obama's upbringing qualifys him. He also has exactly the same executive or adminstative experience as Obama: NONE!
Give me the better educated, level headed thinker over the hot head uniformed Mccain.

No, but when you leave your sick wife, and run off and marry the heiress to the Budweiser fortune (whom you started dating, and then asked your wife for a divorce, in the opposite order to which good family values indicates you should do it if indeed you do it at all), you tend to be pretty well off.



Who won only because he vastly outnumbered the south.

Who got the idea that his sailors would be just fine facing Typhoon Cobra, a gross lack of judgement that killed 800-odd men, destroyed 146 airplanes, and sank three destroyers.

Who earned his nickname by standing like a "stone wall" instead of leading his troops to come to the aid of the Bee and Bartow brigades when they were under heavy fire.


Real winners you've chosen as shining examples of what "bottom rungers" can do.


So. . .what you seem to be postulating here is that only abject failures can possibly have a chance at success in the White House? That we should purposely find the dumbest guy we can dig up and elect him to the presidency? We've tried that for 8 years and look where it's gotten us.

Not to mention that Grant shouldn't be anyone's example of a good president.

Hey now, don't forget... Americans don't take kindly to anyone being Above Average. They're uppity and shit.

C's get degrees!!! (and the White House) :thumbsup: Mediocrity, all the way!

Aww, c'mon now Ab, that's not really fair. Of course we love our intellectuals, we broadcast the spelling bee on ESPN even. Einstein and Stephen Hawking are iconic and our Jeopardy champions become celebrities. Close to a third of American hold college degrees; one of the highest ratios on the world.

What Americans don't take kindly too are so-called intellectuals insulting the rest of us. It is the elitism, condescension and patronizing that turns off the average American. We don't like to take guff from anyone which is perfectly understandable. Bottom line, there is no need for the intellectuals to be rude to the rest of us.

There is a big difference.

I'm still waiting for someone to point to any source that suggests the average American is "turned off" or feels condescended to or patronized by the "intellectual elites"...other than the mantra from the conservative talking heads.
-----Added 22/9/2008 at 04 : 05 : 47-----
Otto made the same argument in another thread...and I am patiently waiting for him to source it. :)

Has Obama done anything or said anything that you took as condescension?

HE GOT EDUMACATED >:l.

No, not at all which is why he is so appealing to me. His supporters on the other hand...they need to stop.

That's sort of my point.

DC, I am coming from my experience and observation. I see it all the time.

I also recently started watching this new show called the Daily Show and boy, it is a whopper. So much hate on it. By the way, the Daily Show is not very conservative. Not at all actually. It's definitely a different style of news show but the host and correspondents are very condescending.

Ron Paul all over again? :eek:

jorgelito...there is a reason why the Daily show is on the COMEDY CHANNEL. I understand that some wont agree with the political satire.

What I see all the time are Limbaugh, O'Reilly, et al screaming "elitists"... *unpatriotic" .... "anti-American" ..... "terrorist sympathizers"...

I certainly didn't intend for it to be fair. It's called sarcasm.

EDIT: Just noticed your Daily Show reaction. Well, no wonder you don't like my sense of humor, lol.

But really, is it really so elitist that I expect the average American voter to exercise critical thinking skills and to not be totally swept away by the lowest-denominator propaganda that is shoved at them on a daily basis? I have the same expectations when I am teaching. I expect my students to use their brains. When they don't, they get punished for it in the form of grades. Does that mean all teachers are elitist because we have high standards for people to actually think and evaluate and NOT say things like, "I just can't imagine an American president with the name Barack Obama... that's why I won't vote for him." (Yes, I actually heard this a few days ago, from a mother of one of my close friends.)

Funny, I thought that it was a good thing to expect that the average person has the brains and skills to pick their way through a presidential election... should I keep lowering my standards? That's the message I'm getting in this election.

Should you EXPECT it? No. That's foolish.

Should we wish we lived in a world where that was normal? I'd like to think so :\.

And if we can make any steps to inform those around us of both sides so they make an educated decision and move closer to that ideal, that's a good first step.

Oh, believe me, I recognize that now. I just used to be a little more idealistic, and wanted to believe the best in people. Now I'm just cynical.Yeah, but that's assuming that people want to be informed, or that they want to make a truly educated decision. And once again, I used to think that was just a given... after all, I was one of those people who changed her politics (and a whole lot of other things) after a lot of talking and discussing with people whose views were different from mine. But this election has truly made me wonder about how much the average American is really open to having his/her mind change. It's all about the "gut" these days, what a person "feels" about a candidate. E.g. whether his name is American enough or not, as I mentioned above.

I will once again cite the intelligent nature of the people who re-elected Marion Barry to office after his federal drug conviction, who are these Einsteins going to vote for?

I bet 50% of the votes cast for Obama this fall will be from people without a high school education. He will rule the votes from the inner cities, with their 40% drop out rate.

And you high horse dems still think the republicans and the party with the morons, pretty funny shit.

...
:\

It's the internet, Joz.

DC, DC, I was kidding!!:) I know sarcasm is hard in 2-d we need a new smiley or icon for it.

But in all seriousness, I actually find the Daily Show to be very well written and loved, absolutely loved their coverage of the DNC and RNC. Did you get a chance to catch it? Though the Daily Show takes shots at both sides, I do think it leans a bit left (that is a fair assessment I think). Still, good stuff as long as you remember it's just a comedy show ;)

As for Rush et al, I do not listen or watch so I couldn't really tell you. But from my limited interaction, I find it quite off-putting and at the very least, unintelligible even when I downloaded the transcript to follow along. It's mostly shouting and cutting people off. There is no discussion. I can't even tell if it's English. I prefer to listen to the NPR interviews and commentaries. Very well-balanced. The BBC too when I get a chance.
-----Added 22/9/2008 at 06 : 25 : 01-----
Or Howard Dean? :eek:

Well hey, I gotta take my high horse out for a ride at least once a day... ;)

Ab!! Sorry, I didn't catch your sarcasm at all, but I was merely trying to present a different perspective.

Yes you are absolutely correct Ab, and I would tend to agree. No one is asking you to lower your standards, but one of the effects of having a diverse and varied population is people have different criteria, standards, and priorities. For some, pro-life/choice is THE issue and they will vote accordingly no matter what. Others find the economy to be the most important so will vote that way. Still others may prefer someone who represents them best, be it male, female, young, old, black, Asian, white etc.

In fact, Ab, many people are voting for Obama simply because he is young and perceivably hip. Or because they like Michelle Obama. Others will vote for Obama because Oprah tells them too. Do you think that is lowest-common denominator propaganda? Many Americans will vote McCain because he is a military man and they identify with that. To each their own.

Yes I to have heard some ridiculous comments like you: My personal favorites:

"I'm voting Obama cause he's so cute!"

"I's voting Obama cuz he black an' representz da hood yo. Word."

And everybody's favorite:

"I'm NOT voting Obama cause he's Muslim."

I can understand your frustrations but rather than berating people for their opinions and beliefs, it would probably be better to engage them in a thoughtful more meaningful manner.

Just my opinion.
-----Added 22/9/2008 at 06 : 36 : 45-----
Perfectly acceptable, but you may have to make some room for me too. :)

Not always. I tried to debate the most recent rabid evangelical on the topic of Obama's musliminity, and was berated for trying to force my beliefs on her.

Oh, I know... I personally know several people who vote that way, and that won't change anytime soon. I don't even bother talking with them about politics, because there is just no way to even approach the subject rationally. But now I'm starting to feel that way about a lot of other voters as well... for the same reasons that you give about why people are voting with their "gut."Sincerely: I would like to know if/when I am truly berating someone here. Most of what I say is couched in a great deal of sarcasm, but I do not intend to insult anyone personally here. If you have perceived me doing that, feel free to call me out, truly. I used to try and engage people in a "thoughtful" manner, only to have most of it flung back in my face with a surprising amount of vitriol. Have you read the Palin thread in the LL?
Alright, well hold on tight, then. :lol:

Abaya, I'm afraid I must chalk this up to poor English skills. I should have split that sentence. Of course you didn't berate anyone nor did I intend to imply you did. I meant: "I too share your frustrations. However, rather than berating people for their opinions and beliefs, it would probably be better if people were to engage others in a thoughtful more meaningful manner."

I think the berating thing perception was more of a third-person type of thing. Sort of berating the general public for being too stupid or not critical enough. Something like that. At least that's how I interpreted it.

Anyways, sorry for the confusion.

I have not seen the Palin thread in LL. I thought that was for ladies only.

There's a reason we can still see it =). We're just not allowed to -post- there.

YYYEEEEEEAAAAAHHHHHHHAAWWWWW!!!!!!
:expressionless::no: