Login

Register

Member List

RSS Feed

Amanda | Contact

Auguste | Contact

Jesse | Contact

Pam | Contact

Next entry: New womb control advocacy: Personhood USA Previous entry: The religious right promises more amendments, do we have a plan?

Post-election crack for political junkies

Newsweek has the first of a seven part series up on how Obama did what seems to be impossible on paper—-win the Presidency while up against not one, but two of the most popular politicians in D.C. while being black in a country where racism is still quite commonplace.  If you’re a political junkie, this is great reading—-total inside baseball, all soap opera.  However, just reading the first part, I learned something new and had an assumption I’ve been carrying around for a long time vindicated. 

The latter has everything to do with why Democrats were smart to go with Obama over Clinton.  My feeling was that both were capable leaders, though both were centrist Democrats whose asses we had to ride the second they stepped into office.  And the fact that we had a woman and a black man running meant that we were voting to break the streak of white men into the White House either way.  But for me it came down to the war in Iraq and the existence of Mark Penn.  On the former, since Obama didn’t support the war at any point in time, he was able to address that issue with the public in a straightforward manner, instead of hedging and making excuses like Kerry did.  This story vindicates my feelings on that.  Obama apparently characterized the war as “stupid” from the get-go.  It wasn’t just that he was against it, but also that he seems to realize what should have been obvious from the get-go, which is that this war will turn sour very quickly, and everyone who was associated with it will pay the price. 


But I also backed Obama because I wanted the Clinton style of campaigning over with.  Mark Penn comes off as even more politically obtuse than I would have imagined in this piece.  He’s so focused on trying to mold his candidate into this John Wayne masculine ideal that he won’t allow in evidence that his strategies aren’t working.  I found it quite telling that Clinton had a minor meltdown after she choked up in public, because Penn had been hammering at her how she needed to be the tough guy, but David Axelrod—-Obama’s campaign strategist—-was open-minded enough to take the incident for what it was.

Obama’s strategist David Axelrod was on the campaign bus when word came that Clinton had teared up, experienced some sort of breakdown. Some of Obama’s aides began chortling about an Ed Muskie moment, but when Axelrod went online and saw a video feed of the incident, he had an uneasy feeling. “Everybody said, ‘Oh, Ed Muskie and all that’,” Axelrod later recalled. “But it didn’t come across that way to me at all. It came across as a moment of humanity from someone who badly needed to show one.”

That was my feeling at the time, too.  I liked Clinton in that moment, and it made me resent all her handlers that kept trying to make her be something she’s not, when who she is is just fine.  She’s already a nervous person, but the amount of pressure on her to be a cool cucumber that comes across as somewhat masculine made her even jumpier.  Comparisons to Muskie are unfounded—-different person, different time, different set of pressures.  Two big things have changed.  First of all, we live in the age of Oprah, and thus being emotional is not seen so much as undermining your own authority.  Some people try to hang that on Oprah, but the ratings and her continued place in the public eye don’t lie.  More importantly, we live in an exceedingly cynical age, when the number of strategists and handlers around politicians inclines the public to think that they never have an uncalculated moment.  We have grown to quit thinking of the people in D.C. as operating with human motivations, but instead see them as unemotional lizards whose decision-making is motivated strictly by greed and calculation.  That it’s actually impossible for so many people to be so inhuman doesn’t challenge this view.  Subsequently, the moment anyone shows that he or she is actually a lot like the rest of us, we like them more.  That, I think as much as anything, is why the Lewinsky scandal improved the popularity of both Clintons.  All of a sudden we realized they aren’t some bloodless ambition monsters, but actually people (like us!) who have flaws and multi-faceted desires and make mistakes.  Clinton choking up did the same thing, and frankly, it kept her campaign alive.

What I learned new relates to that.  This story gives you the strong impression that Obama is the guy he says he is.  His campaign team works more by intuition than by applying rock hard principles that they won’t change, and most of the criticism of Obama comes from himself.  Indeed, this is why he can bend to the desires of the public, become what they need him to be, and it doesn’t come across as slick or phony.  Because he’s right there with them.  The way he adopted the cadence of a preacher really illustrates this—-it comes across more as someone stepping into a role than someone putting up a front to lure others in.  I found myself relating to the guy, reading this article.  He’s an introverted extrovert, which is rare in a politician and can be very off-putting to people.  (Believe me, as someone who is like that, I know.  You like people and like to be in the spotlight, but you’re also inner-driven and intense, and that doesn’t tend to mesh well with the former and people have trouble figuring you out.)  Obama is also intensely attached to his family in a way that’s rare for people that are so ambitious. 

There’s some pretty fun stuff from the highlights, making me very eager to read the next 6 chapters of this feature story.  The best is something you’ve probably already heard:

NEWSWEEK has also learned that Palin’s shopping spree at high-end department stores was more extensive than previously reported. While publicly supporting Palin, McCain’s top advisers privately fumed at what they regarded as her outrageous profligacy. One senior aide said that Nicolle Wallace had told Palin to buy three suits for the convention and hire a stylist. But instead, the vice presidential nominee began buying for herself and her family—clothes and accessories from top stores such as Saks Fifth Avenue and Neiman Marcus. According to two knowledgeable sources, a vast majority of the clothes were bought by a wealthy donor, who was shocked when he got the bill. Palin also used low-level staffers to buy some of the clothes on their credit cards. The McCain campaign found out last week when the aides sought reimbursement. One aide estimated that she spent “tens of thousands” more than the reported $150,000, and that $20,000 to $40,000 went to buy clothes for her husband. Some articles of clothing have apparently been lost. An angry aide characterized the shopping spree as “Wasilla hillbillies looting Neiman Marcus from coast to coast,” and said the truth will eventually come out when the Republican Party audits its books.

If she wants to hang onto the spotlight, she better get out of being a politician, because this sort of shit means the party is cutting her off.  If she’s smart, she’ll go into some sort of media job, though I don’t know how she could do that, either, because she’s a terrible interview.  Maybe she could be a televangelist. 

This sort of thing isn’t everyone’s cup of tea, but I love it.  It’s a nice reminder that yes, politicians are people, too. 

 

------

Registration is now required! We're still in the process of getting it all squared away, so for the moment don't forget to Login or Register using the links in the upper left menu before starting to write your comment.

Posted by Amanda Marcotte on 12:36 PM • (62) Comments

But for me it came down to the war in Iraq and the existence of Mark Penn.

Bingo. Hillary lost my support back in 2003, when she was my Senator and I called her office questioning her vote supporting Bush’s war. The answer I received from her staffer was arrogant and condescending, a variation on the “Hillary knows best” attitude we continued to see when she began to run for President.

And during the primaries, over-paid idiots like Penn and Wolfson only encouraged that attitude, in addition to pushing the discredited DLC approach to its logical conclusion (“hard-working, white Americans”). Combine that with her Boomer-era “my turn, MY turn!</i> entitled feminism and the fact that she rubbed moderate conservatives the wrong way, and we would have had a far different outcome if she had clinched the nomination.

And that’s taking into account the extreme bumbling of the McCain campaign.

Comment #1: Gracchus  on  11/06  at  12:51 PM

Clinton choking up did the same thing, and frankly, it kept her campaign alive.

It’s pretty clear that without that moment and the subsequent pile-on by the media, she wouldn’t have won New Hampshire and her campaign would have been dead in the water.  People not only liked her showing that moment of humanity, they got pissed off at the way she was being treated by the media.  I still think that the blatant sexism shown by the media actually helped her campaign, not hurt it, because it was so clearly unfair and unwarranted.

I know the buck stops with Clinton because she’s the one who hired Mark Penn, but dear God he was useless.  One of the things I hold against both Clintons is that they don’t have very good judgment about who they bring on board in order to get elected.  I’m not sure I’ll ever forgive them for inflicting Dick Morris on the world.

Comment #2: Mnemosyne  on  11/06  at  01:00 PM

She rubs moderate liberals the wrong way too.  At least, a lot of them.

Over and over: she hires bad staff.  That’s a fatal flaw in a president.

Comment #3: Eric, Rejector of Memez  on  11/06  at  01:03 PM

As a Brit I’m pretty much blown away by what’s happened, but it will never happen here in UK according to the leading black UK experts - Britain having a black prime minister that is.

Now there’s a scarey thought - we could be a century behind the ‘new’ USA, but the vote is still going on I suppose. Hat’s off to you for gritting your teeth, setting your faces like flint and ‘just doing it’.

Comment #4: World history  on  11/06  at  01:17 PM

“Mark Penn comes off as even more politically obtuse than I would have imagined in this piece.  He’s so focused on trying to mold his candidate into this John Wayne masculine ideal that he won’t allow in evidence that his strategies aren’t working.”

Typical “new” Democrat:  “We have to change ourselves to what we think some swing voters want, rather than convince them to want what we are”.  That usually works out REAL well.


“He’s an introverted extrovert, which is rare in a politician and can be very off-putting to people.  Believe me, as someone who is like that, I know.”

Freak!  Just kidding.

Comment #5: Notorious P.A.T.  on  11/06  at  01:17 PM

I’d have to agree, both Clintons have surrounded themselves with the wrong people. Bill just happened to run against people that couldn’t win no matter who he hired. If Hillary had voted against the war, I probably would have voted for her in the primary. My wife had supported her from the first day until it was obvious that Barack was going to be the nominee, then she supported him.

Comment #6: Mark  on  11/06  at  01:19 PM

She rubs moderate liberals the wrong way too.  At least, a lot of them.

She certainly did this one—she wouldn’t have had my vote in this election. But more importantly, she definitely wouldn’t have had the votes of all the moderate conservatives who voted for Obama the other day despite their usual party affiliation. In a close popular vote, they were one of the blocs that made a difference.

And right on about the bad hiring decisions, and bad managers in general. A critical moment during the primaries was when a reporter asked Obama how we could know whether he was qualified for executive office, and Obama said something like “watch how I run my campaign, and judge for yourself.” At that point, enough people had seen it in action to know that he was better on that count than any of his remaining competitors, hands-down.

Comment #7: Gracchus  on  11/06  at  01:20 PM

We have to change ourselves to what we think some swing voters want, rather than convince them to want what we are

This is absolutely correct.  It is the essence of the problem with the Democrats - they have let themselves fall for the right wing line and are being lead around by the nose.  I was pulling for Franken because he doesn’t fall for that bullshit and he has the potential to help stiffen the spines of the Democrats.  There’s still hope for him, but it’s fading.  Maybe next time.

Comment #8: togolosh  on  11/06  at  01:31 PM

“Hat’s off to you for gritting your teeth, setting your faces like flint and ‘just doing it’.”

I don’t quite catch your meaning here, but I assure you, it was an honor, privilege, and pleasure to cast a vote for Barack Obama.

Comment #9: Eric, Rejector of Memez  on  11/06  at  01:40 PM

Over and over: she hires bad staff.  That’s a fatal flaw in a president.

I think this was a problem with McCain, as well, and one of the reasons the Palin pick hurt him more than a problematic veep pick should have. A couple months ago I was chatting with my father about politics and the campaign and this and that, and I shared my take on McCain, which is that he would basically be a competent version of Bush - that is, most of his policies would be very similar, but we’d probably see a more competent execution - and my father, who like many people was a fan on the McCain from 2000, said he used to think that, but when he looks at the way his campaign is being run, he’s not sure he believes that any more. Again, bad staff.

Comment #10: chingona  on  11/06  at  01:53 PM

Typical “new” Democrat:  “We have to change ourselves to what we think some swing voters want, rather than convince them to want what we are”.  That usually works out REAL well.

A fellow political junkie of my acquaintance who is pretty conservative said yesterday he thinks one reason Obama won was that he “owns” his liberal positions and doesn’t shy away for them. Take Joe the Plumber and “spreading the wealth.” A lot of Democrats would have fallen all over themselves to take it back and try to explain it away. Obama basically said “yeah, that’s how progressive taxation works. And?” I think that’s one reason all the “socialist” claims by McCain failed to find much purchase.

(Of course, from my perspective, Obama’s not that liberal, but that’s all relative.)

Comment #11: chingona  on  11/06  at  02:00 PM

Totally, OT, but this seems like as good a place as any to take care of a bit of post-election business I haven’t gotten to yet.  Hope y’all don’t mind.

Frank L, if you’re out there, way back in this thread, you invited me to a party today to “toast the end of the biggest threat to American sovereignty since 9/11”.

I know I said at the time that I probably wouldn’t have too much fun at your party, but I’ve changed my mind.  Is it too late for me to accept your invitation?  My grandparents have a camp in the Finger Lakes, which is New York’s wine country, and my wife and I picked up a case of this really great blush from one of the wineries when we were on a visit this summer.  We’ve still got a couple of bottles left.  We could bring those.

Comment #12: Seraph  on  11/06  at  02:02 PM

Well, I was against Clinton because, as a committed partisan, I didn’t think she was good for the party—the legacy thing was problematic at best (and would certainly have blunted perfectly legitimate criticism of the GOP’s aristocratic outlook), and the Clinton M.O. is to fight for personal political survival instead of taking risks for ideological victories.  Basically, after Gore decided not to run, I looked at the top three and decided that Edwards didn’t have the skill to do what he promised while HRC didn’t have the habits of courage, but that Obama, while promising less, looked to be far more skilled as a politician than the other two.

Plus, I didn’t want to see a the same tribe of snotty, self-serving leakers from Bill’s administration on the tv again for several years, which I guess ties in with the point above.

Comment #13: latts  on  11/06  at  02:07 PM

As a Brit I’m pretty much blown away by what’s happened, but it will never happen here in UK according to the leading black UK experts - Britain having a black prime minister that is.

  I remember sitting around the table at Christmas two years ago, right around the time that Obama announced he would run (or maybe at the point that there started to be serious speculation?), and saying “Barack Obama will be the next president.”  Everyone else at the table scoffed and said some variation on “Nobody is going to vote to elect a Black president.”

Two years ago this conversation took place.

Wouldn’t it be slightly easier for the UK to have a Black or South Asian prime minister, seeing as that position is not directly elected?  It’s just a matter of who heads up the party, right?  Which is how we got Pelosi as Speaker of the House - it’s whoever was Minority Leader when their party took control of the house.

Comment #14: The Opoponax  on  11/06  at  02:17 PM

Time for Ms Kate to fess up (and I’m not joking here).

Bingo. Hillary lost my support back in 2003, when she was my Senator and I called her office questioning her vote supporting Bush’s war. The answer I received from her staffer was arrogant and condescending, a variation on the “Hillary knows best” attitude we continued to see when she began to run for President.

Kerry is my senator, and I was very pissed off at him for voting for the war.  I fired off a constituent e-mail to that effect, while half drunk, and I asked him: when it comes to facing the families of those who will be killed in this war - the US soldiers, the Iraqi civilians - what will you say to them?  How will you explain these policy excuses in direct human terms?  Will you be able to look them in the eye and say “I’m sorry, but they had to die”?

A couple of months later, I was introduced to a companion of somebody I worked with - a woman who worked on his staff.  She came up to me sometime later and asked if I was the one who sent that e-mail.  It apparently made life a bit difficult in the office for a few days.

My blood ran cold when he turned it on Bush at the DNC coronation.

This has been and always will be a big problem with Kerry: he put his perception of his political future too far ahead of his conscience.  Had he voted his conscience and had the courage of his convictions that Obama did to never apologise or backpedal, he might have gotten Bush and never looked as wishywashy as he did.  I got to be Karma the Dog for a day or two, but I really think that his hedging about the war and voting to go to war bit him in the ass much more than my drunkmail did.

Comment #15: Ms Kate  on  11/06  at  02:26 PM

Everyone else at the table scoffed and said some variation on “Nobody is going to vote to elect a Black president.”

Gradual change seems to be as fat of a myth for sociological situations as it is for evolutionary situations.  I think we are seeing punctuated equillibrium here - a massive response to a serious environmental challenge.

Comment #16: Ms Kate  on  11/06  at  02:28 PM

This story gives you the strong impression that Obama is the guy he says he is.

It’s such a strange feeling for me to have a president who seems like a decent, well-meaning person and likely won’t be doing everything possible to fuck us all over. I was too young to understand politics in Clinton’s time, and it’s only now that I realize what a great president he was and what he accomplished. George W. Bush is the only American president I’ve known as an adult, and I have very little idea how to feel now, as excited as I am.

Comment #17: junk science  on  11/06  at  02:29 PM

Gradual change seems to be as fat of a myth for sociological situations as it is for evolutionary situations.  I think we are seeing punctuated equillibrium here - a massive response to a serious environmental challenge.

Oooo! That’s a great illustration, Ms. Kate.  Seriously.  The old answers don’t work anymore, throwing the paradigm into chaos.  We begin to look around for an answer, and up walks Obama.

Ok, now I’ve made it sound trite.  Still a good post Ms. Kate.

Comment #18: ummeli  on  11/06  at  03:29 PM

i feel the same way, junk science. i was alive during Reagan and Bush 1, but remember bupkiss governmentally, and most of what i remember of Clinton was the Starr witch-hunt hoopla. Bush 2 has been the defining governing style of my lifetime, which honestly, sets the bar REALLY low for the Obama presidency. don’t let whole cities drown for months and don’t start wars that bleed us dry, and i’m likely to vote for him again. it’s weird to think that for my children, Obama will be how they define government in their lifetime.

Comment #19: redwards  on  11/06  at  03:31 PM

Right there with you on both the war and Mark Penn.  The other big reason I supported him was that he has a tremendous talent for articulating liberal values in a way that can appeal to people other than liberals—which is one of the things we need to do to cement an enduring majority.  (The other thing we need to do is pass legislation that improves people’s lives, and we’ll see about that.)

I found myself relating to the guy, reading this article.  He’s an introverted extrovert, which is rare in a politician and can be very off-putting to people.  (Believe me, as someone who is like that, I know.

I had the same reaction, for the same reason.

Comment #20: TomHilton  on  11/06  at  03:34 PM

No matter how hard Hitlery tries, she’ll never be Sarah Palin, so she should just stop trying.  The only hi point in her campain was when she was in that bar downing shots, she shoulda just kept going until she past out, then Americans might’ve said, “I want a President I can throw up with”, but she didn’t, so she lost.

Comment #21: Rugged in Montana  on  11/06  at  04:16 PM

holy crap, RiM, i coulda done without that mental image!
if Bush 2 had run earlier in his life, it would of been ” I want a Prez I can do lines off of prostitutes asses with”. ahh the 80’s, who we miss ya.

Comment #22: redwards  on  11/06  at  04:25 PM

Obama is the guy he says he is.

I have the good luck to have a neighbor who went to school with Obama in Hawaii.  I’ve seen the class photo with the two of them standing next to each other.  My neighbor says, yes, Obama really is a genuinely good and decent guy who cares about people. For what it’s worth, my neighbor thought so highly of Obama’s character, based on the 7 years they knew each other in school, that he’s spent about 30-40 hours a week for the last year volunteering for the campaign (on top of his full time job).  If you ask him, he’ll tell you “Obama’s the real deal.”

Comment #23: celyn  on  11/06  at  04:39 PM

Oh Amanda, I literally sat in front of my computer reading that yesterday with a big bowl of popcorn.  It’s really really hot political porn.

Comment #24: Eric  on  11/06  at  04:45 PM

He’s an introverted extrovert, which is rare in a politician and can be very off-putting to people.  (Believe me, as someone who is like that, I know.  You like people and like to be in the spotlight, but you’re also inner-driven and intense, and that doesn’t tend to mesh well with the former and people have trouble figuring you out.)

That’s interesting, because (to MBTI nerd out) a) Typelogic has Obama typed as an ENFJ, but I have always thought that, with figures like this, it can be rather difficult to tell whether they are I or E because you only see them in the spotlight.  However, I have started to think more lately that he is an INFJ (because of obscure crap that no one here cares about).  It’s just hard to tell if they’re introverted because they can’t show how tired they are, you know?  However, it’s clear with Obama that a great deal goes on internally, and more internally than with most people.

I will NOT own McCain as an INTP.  He shows a lot of the traits, but he can fuck right off.

I always typed you as an INTJ, or perhaps XNTJ, since I don’t know if you are I or E, either, really, and have no evidence either way.

And, incidentally, I thought the part where Obama had privately talked about stupid questions and dropped the F-bomb was hilarious.  Here.

Comment #25: Atheist Feminazi  on  11/06  at  05:16 PM

“both were centrist Democrats whose asses we had to ride the second they stepped into office.”

Quoted for truth. Al Giordano at the Field has been harping on that for a while - we organized to get Obama as president, now we need to organize the president!

Comment #26: nihilix  on  11/06  at  05:17 PM

Nothing was obvious in early 2003 about Iraq.  Cheney was dreaming his nightmare and the Left was saying “Let the inspections work”.  Of course, they couldn’t have “Worked”.

There were a few voices wondering how we would manage the nation of Iraq without Saddam’s violence to keep people in line.

But everybody expected another 3-month war, if not a 3-week war, just like 1991 when Saddam was kicked out of Kuwait.  And Saddam fell in a short time.  So they were right on that.  But, clearly, not on the rest.

Nobody I remember said there would be a long insurrection and mutual ethnic cleansing among the Iraqis.  Did anybody say that in 2003?

Predicting the future isn’t within our capacity.  Anything that was “Obvious” wasn’t necessarily true.  And the truth wasn’t obvious.

Comment #27: Fred 2  on  11/06  at  05:17 PM

An angry aide characterized the shopping spree as “Wasilla hillbillies looting Neiman Marcus from coast to coast,” and said the truth will eventually come out when the Republican Party audits its books.

Except that the Beverly Hillbillies bought their tacky stuff with their own money, whereas the Wasilla Hillbillies used somebody else’s

Comment #28: Ms Kate  on  11/06  at  05:44 PM

Fred 2 -
“But everybody expected another 3-month war, if not a 3-week war, just like 1991 when Saddam was kicked out of Kuwait. ”

Speak for yourself.  The pundits may have bowed over for Bush’s plan, but a lot of us were skeptical from the very start.  I’ll never forget seeing Wolfowitz (or was it Cheney)? on TV saying, “This war will cost us less than 20 million and take two months, tops” (parahrasing).

I thought to myself,  “this guy is fucking nuts.  He thinks we can send troops in an area such as Iraq with history that goes back thousands of years, and we can just go in, shoot some people, and leave it like that smelling like roses?!!. “

Not to mention, the second Bush dropped the WMD bomb, I smelled a rat.

Comment #29: melaka  on  11/06  at  05:48 PM

the Left was saying “Let the inspections work”.  Of course, they couldn’t have “Worked”.

Actually, the inspections did work. That is why no-one was able to find WMD’s in Iraq. The inspection regime, combined with the long years of sanctions, had forced Hussein to end his WMD programs. That is the very definition of an inspection regime that works.

But everybody expected another 3-month war, if not a 3-week war, just like 1991 when Saddam was kicked out of Kuwait.  And Saddam fell in a short time.  So they were right on that.  But, clearly, not on the rest.

Wrong again. People expected the initial war to be short, yes. But it was quite obvious from the very beginning that George W. Bush planned to occupy Iraq, and that was quite obviously going to take a long time. Many people remarked upon this before the beginning of the war.

Anything that was “Obvious” wasn’t necessarily true.  And the truth wasn’t obvious.

Some things are just obvious, if you know what you are talking about.

Comment #30: atheist  on  11/06  at  05:52 PM

Fred, it wasn’t obvious that what has happened would happen - unless, of course, you were listening to several generals and members of the intelligence community who were al lsaying it was going to be a much bigger mess.  To bad Bush pushed them all out rather than listen to them, like his father had the wisdom to do.

You think it was an accident of history that Bush I refused to mess in Iraq after pushing Hussein’s troops out of Kuwait???  Like, duh!

Comment #31: Ms Kate  on  11/06  at  06:00 PM

Nothing was obvious in early 2003 about Iraq.  Cheney was dreaming his nightmare and the Left was saying “Let the inspections work”.  Of course, they couldn’t have “Worked”.

There were a few voices wondering how we would manage the nation of Iraq without Saddam’s violence to keep people in line.

But everybody expected another 3-month war, if not a 3-week war, just like 1991 when Saddam was kicked out of Kuwait.  And Saddam fell in a short time.  So they were right on that.  But, clearly, not on the rest.

Nobody I remember said there would be a long insurrection and mutual ethnic cleansing among the Iraqis.  Did anybody say that in 2003?

Yes.

“The option of war might seem a priori to be the swiftest. But let us not forget that having won the war, one has to build peace. Let us not delude ourselves; this will be long and difficult because it will be necessary to preserve Iraq’s unity and restore stability in a lasting way in a country and region harshly affected by the intrusion of force.”

This was one of your allies.  Indeed, this was your oldest ally, without which your country might not exist.  They were trying to tell you something they had learned from their own colonial mistakes.

And you repaid them with ridicule and derision.

Comment #32: Phoenician in a time of Romans  on  11/06  at  06:03 PM

This was one of your allies.  Indeed, this was your oldest ally, without which your country might not exist.  They were trying to tell you something they had learned from their own colonial mistakes.

Exactly. Not to mention, anyone who was not being willfully blind could see the writing on the wall. Bush was going to attack and he was going to occupy the country and drink oil.

Comment #33: atheist  on  11/06  at  06:08 PM

Who in the hell spends 20 to 40 grand on clothes? For a guy, and supposedly a “guy’s guy” at that? Sweet Marinated Jesus, my mother taught grade school for 25 years and never made more than 20 grand a year.

Comment #34: Matt T.  on  11/06  at  07:00 PM

Sorry, Y’all. I take it personally when people try to claim no-body knew that the Iraq war would have turned out this way.

I need to keep responding, as I do now, but without the same fire.

Comment #35: atheist  on  11/06  at  07:16 PM

I am so proud of rank-and-file Democrats for having the backbone to take what looked like a significant risk in nominating Barack.  We’ve been so bloody cautious for so bloody long, and it got us exactly nowhere.  We’ve finally uncorked our latent power.

Comment #36: Donna Q  on  11/06  at  07:47 PM

I am through the first 5 chapters of the series and they are all pretty damn good.  And some of the McCain stuff, while described pretty gently by journalists that are obviously trying to push the old, “He was kinda forced to use dirty politics by his staff” meme, still makes him look like one mean-spirited bastard. You will know what I am talking about when you read it, but I don’t want to spoil anything.

Comment #37: bdub  on  11/06  at  08:09 PM

Nobody I remember said there would be a long insurrection and mutual ethnic cleansing among the Iraqis.  Did anybody say that in 2003?

Oh, nobody in particular…only France, Germany, and much of our own military. And even my drunk-ass college buddies and me, sitting in a bar and watching the war kick off.

Seriously…not that hard to predict.

Comment #38: Well, what?  on  11/06  at  08:37 PM

INTPagan:

That’s interesting, because (to MBTI nerd out) a) Typelogic has Obama typed as an ENFJ, but I have always thought that, with figures like this, it can be rather difficult to tell whether they are I or E because you only see them in the spotlight.  However, I have started to think more lately that he is an INFJ (because of obscure crap that no one here cares about).  It’s just hard to tell if they’re introverted because they can’t show how tired they are, you know?  However, it’s clear with Obama that a great deal goes on internally, and more internally than with most people.

That’s no argument for making him an introvert.  For their preferred modes, the two major functions (S/N and T/F) take opposites (I/E).  You’re just saying you sense that his judging preference (T/F) is introverted.

From what I’ve heard, he likes to have a bunch of people around him to discuss problems, argue, give him ideas.  Then he makes up his own mind, supporting your introverted T/J.

I think one could argue that he’s extraverting his Sensing to gain information and then processing internally with Thinking (true/false) or Feeling (right/wrong).  ESxP.

There are a lot of smart S preferrers out there.  Assigning S to everyone you don’t like (SJ to the martinets and SP to the wingnuts) is tempting but inaccurate.

Comment #39: oldfeminist  on  11/06  at  10:06 PM

The thing that struck me about the first installment of that series was that Hillary really *didn’t* want to run.  She said flat-out that she loved her house, her job, and her life as a senator.  It’s little wonder that she sometimes seemed to be going through the motions; she was happy with life the way it was, without the grind of campaigning.

As for Obama being an ENFJ…oddly enough, so am I.  Almost classic, according to an old teacher.  Even odder, I am one year to the day older than President-Elect Obama.  *cues up Twilight Zone theme*

Comment #40: Ellid  on  11/06  at  10:48 PM

The thing that struck me about the first installment of that series was that Hillary really *didn’t* want to run.  She said flat-out that she loved her house, her job, and her life as a senator.  It’s little wonder that she sometimes seemed to be going through the motions; she was happy with life the way it was, without the grind of campaigning.

I’m pretty sure that Hillary would be perfectly happy if Ted Kennedy passed her his baton and she could become the grande dame of the Senate.  From all accounts, she seems to like the wheeling-and-dealing of legislation more than she would like being in the executive branch and she could really make a long-term difference in areas she really cares about like healthcare.

Comment #41: Mnemosyne  on  11/06  at  10:58 PM

Oh, and I mean “grande dame” in a good, Rosalind-Russell-as-Mame way and not in a bad, Lucille-Ball-as-Mame way.

Comment #42: Mnemosyne  on  11/06  at  10:59 PM

Phoenician:

Mr. Villepin was right.  The invasion was not necessary.  For this GW Bush should not have been re-elected. 

Villepin also laid great stress, in 2003, on the ongoing and future success of inspections.  Saying that if they failed, force would become appropriate.  The inspections would never have found what everybody was looking for, and a later war might have occurred.  Possibly, the actual truth might have become apparent, and war avoided.

After that, Saddam might have restarted his nuclear program; He was still a psychopath after all.  Hopefully another way of stopping him would have been found.

Villepin’s said (in is February 2003):

But let us not forget that having won the war, one has to build peace. Let us not delude ourselves; this will be long and difficult because it will be necessary to preserve Iraq’s unity and restore stability in a lasting way in a country and region harshly affected by the intrusion of force.

(italics added)

I probably would not have believed this as written at the time, I’d have said “Yeah, maybe”.  Even today, when it stands out as nearly prophecy, it also has the ring of a boilerplate objection to difficult action.  I’d never read it before today.  Thanks for finding it.

Note he doesn’t say the combat will last a long time.  It is building the peace that will last a long time.  This sounds like political campaigning.  Only in retrospect can we see that this could apply to guerrilla war.

I still think that “Let the inspections work” was a terrible slogan that made the anti-war movement look dumb, then and now.  There is only a small chance they would have “Worked”.  The same Left was also campaigning against the sanctions themselves, pretty much guaranteeing they would not “Work”.  This combination campaign was also self-defeating, as they destroyed the credibility of the anti-war movement as being really anti-war, at least in my eyes.

Given the choice between supporting a Left that advertised the Saddamite propaganda about half a million starved-to-death Iraqi children (clearly false, there was no sign of starvation) and the President, there was no right answer visible.

Comment #43: Fred 2  on  11/07  at  10:15 AM

Given the choice between supporting a Left that advertised the Saddamite propaganda about half a million starved-to-death Iraqi children (clearly false, there was no sign of starvation) and the President, there was no right answer visible.

I’m sorry, that is just not true. Anti-war Leftists did not ‘advertise’ starving Iraqi children. We pointed out that, in fact, the long regime of sanctions caused many Iraqi children, and adults, to starve. If this truth is unpalatable to you, then I am sorry. Nonetheless, I feel it is my duty to continually point out the real effects of the sanctions during the 1990s, as well as the reality of the invasion, the airstrikes which preceeded it, and the long, deadly, destructive occupation and counterinsurgency operations of the past five years. Americans, as a people who have not known occupation by a foreign military for two hundred years, nor, prior to 9/11, even the reality of a military attack on a city, often seem to me to have a very sterilized and unrealistic view of what happens when, for instance, a city is bombed from the air.

The call of “Let the sanctions work” may have been conterproductive, or confusing. Essentially it was a last ditch effort by many, on the anti-war left and right, and also others, to avert a military invasion which was sure to turn the chronic suffering of the sanctions regime into a massive and acute destruction of innocent human life.

Note he doesn’t say the combat will last a long time.  It is building the peace that will last a long time.  This sounds like political campaigning.  Only in retrospect can we see that this could apply to guerrilla war.

It makes absolutely no difference whatsoever whether you call a military invasion and occupation which lasts years “combat”, “building the peace”, or “counterinsurgency”. Whatever it is called, it kills thousands upon thousands of normal, everyday people, either directly, or indirectly from poverty, increased crime and violence, ethnic cleansing, or increased disease and starvation. It maims infrastructure and political organization in the occupied country, creates hatreds and fears which last long generations, empowers the most violent and extremist elements in a society. It damages the soldiers who do the occupying and invading, killing them, or wounding them in ways that ordinary citizens do not usually care to think about. It also permanently psychically alters the soldiers who do the occupying, giving many of them PTSD, or simply estranging them from normal social contact in their home society. It sucks capital from the occupying state. It degrades the environment of the occupied state, poisoning the air, water and earth with the byproducts of modern weapons systems. It also often leaves unexploded ordnance in the occupied region, traps which will kill and kill again, randomly, for years.

There were many people who predicted much of these effects before the war. They were simply denied time on the “mainstream media”. Their statements were available, though, to people who looked around actively for information.

Comment #44: atheist  on  11/07  at  12:40 PM

I still think that “Let the inspections work” was a terrible slogan that made the anti-war movement look dumb, then and now.  There is only a small chance they would have “Worked”.

I’d think the fact that no weapons existed would be proof that the inspections worked, but apparently in your world the mere fact that Saddam had no weapons is proof that he had them.

Comment #45: Mnemosyne  on  11/07  at  01:40 PM

Int, I’m an XNFJ, right on the borderline between introvert and extrovert.  Seriously, I’m only 1 point in the E arena.

Comment #46: Amanda Marcotte  on  11/07  at  01:51 PM

That’s no argument for making him an introvert.  For their preferred modes, the two major functions (S/N and T/F) take opposites (I/E).  You’re just saying you sense that his judging preference (T/F) is introverted.

Silly, I didn’t say he was an introvert for those reasons; I said he was an introvert for obscure reasons that people here don’t care about.  To put it in more concrete terms, it’s because he’s pensive folk.  He builds up exuberance rather than carrying it naturally with him.

As pensive folk I understand that.  However, that’s the worst explanation for introversion EVAHR.  Suffice to say I think he’s an introvert because of what I’ve read about him in the past few days.

The function I was referring to a moment later was Ni.  I certainly think he introverts thinking, but I also do not think it is what he bases decisions on for the most part, and he also has difficulty expressing that kind of reasoning, which is what tripped him up in earlier debates (also pulling him out of the natural warmth of his native Fe), which signifies Ti on the inferior axis.

Are you coming from a Myers-Briggs (Jungian, essentially) or Socionics perspective?  Because the two differ on the Introverted types and their functional order.

From what I’ve heard, he likes to have a bunch of people around him to discuss problems, argue, give him ideas.  Then he makes up his own mind, supporting your introverted T/J.

Actually, an FJ extraverts feeling (in MBTI type theory, which is why I inquired as to Socionics, which is where this statement would make sense), and I stand by that he extraverts feeling - especially since this article (which is also, incidentally, where I typed him as an I).  It is a primary trait that he probably had to work on pretty hard for campaigning - especially for debates, and there are flashes of it in the moments where McCain would say some absurd shit and Obama would just have this smile that said, “What-the-fuck-ever, dude.”  I also think he functions from primary Ni.  The thing is, someone with Ni on their primary will be aware enough of their personal weaknesses to want input from others as well, generally, which would explain the other people and discussing.

I think one could argue that he’s extraverting his Sensing to gain information and then processing internally with Thinking (true/false) or Feeling (right/wrong).  ESxP.

See, I would disagree strongly with that. 

Firstly, just because it comes from an external source does not make it S.  I Sense what other people say, but I process what it means with N.  I process information that is abstract better than information that is concrete, which is why I am an N, to grossly oversimplify.  If the qualification for N vs. S was that S processes everything ever to come from outside through your senses, everyone would be an S, except for Ns, who would be psychotics who were unaware of the physical world.  (Some push that limit.)  Obama may discuss things with other people, but he processes information and regurgitates it in the abstract, and one of the moments where he slipped up in the article (where he apparently got a bit big-headed and said some stuff he shouldn’t have at a rally early in the primaries) was clearly an example of inferior Se running away with him (in the enjoyment of the moment) and pairing with auxiliary Fe.

Part two in following comment.

Comment #47: INTPagan  on  11/07  at  03:31 PM

Continued:

Obama shows far too much interest in the abstract to be an S preference, and he also is much more calculated and controlled.  He extraverts feeling in coherent and rational ways rather than through the random, explosive expressions of feeling common to someone with Feeling on their inferior axis (like, well, me, and any other TP - John McCain being another excellent example of this, with his explosive temper).  His behaviour is that of someone who introverts iNtuition.  (Incidentally, so is Dick Cheney’s.  He’s INTJ, and his long, carefully architected rise to power clearly demonstrates this, as does his preference for ruling from the shadows.  He is not there to perform; he is there to rule.)

Bill Clinton is an ESFP.  Bush is an ESTP.  Those two share very little in common, but their behaviours have similarities that do make the personality type similarities apparent.  Comparing Obama to those two in terms of behaviour is like comparing apples to oranges.  They both can taste good; they both also have some rotten ones.  However, they are fundamentally different.

There are a lot of smart S preferrers out there.  Assigning S to everyone you don’t like (SJ to the martinets and SP to the wingnuts) is tempting but inaccurate.

I disagree.  The martinets are usually wingnuts; SJs are the ones interested in authority and respecting the status quo (Si gives them the bent towards a respect of systems, even broken ones).  SPs tend to have far less interest in government in that manner except as a place to perform (again, Bush, ESTP) or a place to put practical solutions to problems (Bill Clinton, ESFP).  Those are sweeping generalizations and not universally accurate, but they would work as a rule.  There are SJs who are involved in politics whom I respect (Colin Powell, ESTJ), and there are SPs involved in politics whom I respect (Bill Clinton, ESFP, to a degree).  I do not automatically assign S to people I dislike; it’s just that politics, on the whole, is a subject that will not attract as many Ss as Ns due to the N preference for the abstract, which politics feeds - and I am not fond of some Ns (again, McCain, who is INTP, I will say, but I just don’t want to freaking own him).  I would bet cash money that seven out of ten posters here is an N.  The main Ss that are attracted to politics are the SJs, as far as I see, because of their interest in maintaining order, whether for good or for bad (George H.W. Bush is an ISTJ, and I think he had good intentions as well as some common sense, if nothing else, which is why his son baffles him sometimes).

Amanda, how strongly do you test on the F-T axis?  I’m very curious.  This is a hobby of mine.  (I am split almost even between T and F, although I learn more T than you do E, and I think that both methods are legitimate ways of making decisions as long as there is a healthy balance.)  I’ve been mistyping people I know online on the T-F thing lately (another INFJ friend whom I typed online as T turned out to be extremely F).  I think it’s that people who extravert feeling (especially on their primary axis) tend to be very warm and demonstrative in person, but that does not necessarily translate on teh intahrtubez.

Comment #48: INTPagan  on  11/07  at  03:36 PM

I toggle between INFJ and ENTP depending on what is going on in my life.  In other words, I’m generally right on the median of I/E and P/J.  Pretty much off the charts on both pieces of the NF though!  Always.

Comment #49: Ms Kate  on  11/07  at  11:43 PM

Oh, and I have never tested INFP nor ENFJ.  Never.  There is some pairing going on there.

Comment #50: Ms Kate  on  11/07  at  11:45 PM

Gasp, an NF Idealist on a liberal site?  Say it ain’t so, Joe!

I test about seventy percent I, one hundred percent N (every time I have ever taken it; it’s a miracle I manage to dress myself without assistance), ten to twenty percent T, coming out of ten to twenty percent F (I lean more T as time passes and think it’s partially because I’m breaking out of feminine social conditioning, but I have strong Idealist tendencies that don’t mesh with my Rational typing), and about sixty percent P.

That’s why I’m all into things like politics and psychology.  Abstract=awesomeness.

See, this has become the surrogate for the painfully obsessive INTP mailing list I used to be on, because the people there were largely either libertarian or apathetic, and also I could not handle the volume of the email.  On the whole this is more satisfying, but then sometimes I have to trumpet the type stuff because, dammit, it’s interesting and politically relevant (in that it’s an interesting insight into how people function).  I love analyzing our leaders in that context, because it gives reasonable explanations for their behaviour and also can help to anticipate other responses.

Comment #51: INTPagan  on  11/07  at  11:52 PM

See, that’s why I think we really need an improved model for MBTI.  I don’t fit the function order given for either INFP or INTP, and no one I knows really completely fits.  I know it’s a rough estimate, but I would love to see a better way to include everything.

Your model doesn’t quite fit because you flip between a type that introverts intuition and extraverts feeling on the primary axis and a type that extraverts intuition and introverts feeling on the same, and it’s much more common to flip one letter at a time.  But it’s also believable because I have INFJ days as well.

Do you flip I/E and P/J at the same time?

Comment #52: INTPagan  on  11/07  at  11:55 PM

INTPagan

Is there somewhere that this test can be taken? Now I am sorta curious, anyhow.

Comment #53: atheist  on  11/08  at  12:15 AM

I cannot believe I managed to MBTI threadjack.

Here.

That is a shorter and more simplistic version of the test; I do prefer the DDLI because it covers the discrepancies that can occur between functions, but it’s relatively time-consuming, so Human Metrics may be better if you’re short on time.

I would honestly be curious about the type of most of the people who post here, because of the fake cash money I bet on the majority being N.

Anyhoos, yeah.

Comment #54: INTPagan  on  11/08  at  12:19 AM

I did the short quiz. Here’s what I got:

Your Type is
INTP
Introverted Intuitive Thinking Perceiving
Strength of the preferences % 
Introverted 56
Intuitive 62
Thinking 25
Perceiving 44

Qualitative analysis of your type formula

You are:
moderately expressed introvert

distinctively expressed intuitive personality

moderately expressed thinking personality

moderately expressed perceiving personality

Hmm. Interesting. Maybe I should take the long quiz, later.

Comment #55: atheist  on  11/08  at  12:35 AM

Join the same club as me and John McCain, Atheist.

By the by, introverted intuitors are four percent of the population (with one percent per IN type, being INFP, INTP, INFJ, INTJ).  We just tend to converge around this sort of thing like flies to vinegar.

Comment #56: INTPagan  on  11/08  at  12:42 AM

We just tend to converge around this sort of thing like flies to vinegar.

INTPagan

“This sort of thing”. Do you mean political blogs? What do Introverted Intuitors tend to converge around?

Comment #57: atheist  on  11/08  at  12:46 AM

Politics, psychology, blogs about that kind of shit.  Abstract stuff.

Comment #58: INTPagan  on  11/08  at  12:47 AM

Ah. Yes, indeed.

It has often seemed to me that, while people like to believe that they are individual actors whose actions cannot be analyzed, the reality is quite different. The reality is that, in the aggregate, and often even on an individual level, people tend to act according to rules and societal structures. I honestly get annoyed at people’s claims to be individuals who cannot be understood according to a theory. Perhaps that is an aspect of INTP thinking? Have you thought the same kinds of things?

Comment #59: atheist  on  11/08  at  01:03 AM

Anyway, these kinds of tests can be fertile ground for understanding yourself and others. I guess I’ll ask my GF to take it.

Comment #60: atheist  on  11/08  at  01:07 AM

Atheist, you just perfectly described the point of type theory, as well as demonstrating the INTP preference for using introverted thinking to take in the big picture rather than the small parts and make sense of it.  Yes, this is the sort of thing that generally is thought about, although INTPs are by no means limited to these topics; some of them enjoy simple aesthetics like food and play around with those in creative ways.  The uniting factor is creativity, seeing the big picture, and logical thinking.

I think I just might love you.  Yes, go forth and spread the Myers-Briggs.

Comment #61: INTPagan  on  11/08  at  01:12 AM

I still think that “Let the inspections work” was a terrible slogan that made the anti-war movement look dumb, then and now.  There is only a small chance they would have “Worked”.

Apart from the teeny tiny minor fact that they, well, worked.  Iraq had chemical weapons and a nuclear programme.  Then teh inspections happened, and it didn’t.  And then it got invaded because idiots said “Oh, we can’t depend on the inspections when there’s one defector, a proven liar, who says otherwise”.

And as regards the Meyers-Briggs stuff above, read this.  INTPagan - that means you.

Comment #62: Phoenician in a time of Romans  on  11/08  at  01:31 AM
Page 1 of 1 pages
Commenting is not available in this channel entry.