Obama did fine on Chris Matthews' Hardball "College Tour" interview from West Chester University in Pennsylvania on MSNBC tonight, answering well on all the major issues. But sometimes it's the little exchanges that show the most about a candidate and make the most lasting impression.
My favorite tonight was Obama's answer to Chris Matthews' light-hearted question about whether Obama ever has any moments in the campaign over which he laughs his head off later that night. That happens every day, Obama came back, then added, "but then I stopped watching cable news."
That's what I like to see in a candidate. Not hostile to media, but putting the press in its place. You ask me a question about what I find funny, well, I find a lot of what you put on air about this campaign pretty funny, Obama says.
This is part of what people mean when they say they see a lot of JFK in Barack Obama. Kennedy, a rarity in politics and the Presidency, understood the value of joking with the media, putting reporters back in their place when need be, but always with a smile.
This kind of humor, this kind of comfort with laughter, bespeaks a comfort and confidence to lead.
9 comments:
I completely agree. That was the moment that struck me as well. I also thought he was great when he pushed back on the Reverend Wright issue by reminding Matthews that he'd said plenty of controversial things in his day, too. (Like, mocking Obama's bowling the other day and then saying that while he recognized the ethnic implications, he expected Obama to be good at basketball.)
Obama's at his best when he's loose. When he smiles, you feel drawn in to his sense of accessibility. Most politicians are terrible at this part of public interaction. Some people think McCain is good at it, but that's a matter of taste, I think. Clinton's main problem in this campaign is not about policy or platform. It's not about money or organization (well, maybe a little). It's about her "hot" image held up against Obama's "cool."
Clinton's only "cool" moment was her tears in NH. Otherwise, she's plastic (very "hot"). This appearance on Hardball was a coolfest for Obama and I expect to see a slight boost in his support as a result. The bowling, calf feeding, chocolate eating, and factory touring helps Obama take advantage of his "cool" and I'm glad he's found it before the general. If he keeps it up, he should run away with the presidency.
Excellent analysis - as the scholars of cool, this is one thing we agree completely on...
I like that. I should get some t-shirts made up...
"Scholars of Cool"
The sad part is Paul that Hillary in person is not plastic, I do see the appeal of Obama but I've decided to stay mum until the elections
it is a shame about hillary- as much as I dislike her she is very intelligent.
As for Obama- if he would just take his own advice and break party lines and not be so damn anti-gun I'd vote for him. I just can't support a candidate that will so openly attack the BOR.
(waits for plugh to take mike to task on republicans and the BOR)
I think the point that Hillary is plastic is primarily a reflection of her appearance on television. She is a "hot" character and it comes off as staged, artificial, and agitated on camera. To my knowledge, we've never elected a "hot" candidate since televised politics became the norm.
The Bill of Rights isn't an absolute thing, Mikey. It's open to interpretation of many kinds and we need a very careful and deliberative Supreme Court as a result. There is prevailing opinion on which parts of our Constitution are unambiguous, but there is also a lot of argument as to what interpretation allows ideologues on both sides of the spectrum to enact their political agendas.
Fortunately, the 1st amendment is one of the least ambiguous parts of the Constitution (although there are still plenty of opportunities to defend it against attack) and we are able to gather, discuss, and act on things we believe in. There is no consensus about the 2nd amendment and the discussion continues. Sometimes one side moves the goalpost one way, and on occasion the other side gets to move it back.
The complexity of America as a broadly different collection of cultures and environments makes a Federal, holistic approach to gun control a virtual impossibility. In my opinion, it's the perfect issue to be left to States to handle, with only strict Federal interstate regulations in place to maintain the sovereignty of the local laws.
Then again, what do I know. ;)
I guess what you and I consider ambiguous and you consider ambiguous differ.
to me this is pretty clear:
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. I just don't see where any ambiguity comes up.
the first amendment reads
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
now the first amendment speaks about the freedom of the press before the people- no one complains. the second amendment speaks about the militia before the people, and everyone says citizens have no right.
lets hope that after the gun banners are done with me they dont use the same logic on you guys.
Whats ambiguous about the second amendment is the part that comes before the comma. That is the part about the 'well regulated militia', is that the NRA?
what does it matter what it refers to? I believe it refers to the people, individuals who can form together as a militia.
it obviously isn't the NRA, and its definately not the National Guard.
It matters no more than the ambiguity of the press being before the people in the first amendment separated by a semi-colon.
Post a Comment