Well, while most of us like to be appreciated for our attractiveness (especially if we aren’t especially attractive), going into great detail tends to indicate that this is your primary interest in the person. Also not generally a winning strategy with most women possessing an IQ and over the age of, say, 18. In short, "You are very beautiful, especially in “Girl With a Pearl Earring,” will be more effective than “hey baby, you’ve got a great rack, and as for your ass! Just kill me now and send me to heaven!” 
I don’t think she has to, she doesn’t care who pumps up the tires, so long as she rides the bicycle.
You are soo going to hell for that one.
What percentage of pretty women over 18 also possesses an IQ? I would argue such creatures are largely mythical.
Well now, we don’t need another Marilyn Monroe, do we?
Reading Brooks’ piece, while noting that it’s not without valid criticism of Obama’s actions that call his “new politician” theme into question, it’s odd that he seems suddenly amazed and outraged by the discovery that there’s a calculating politician in there.
This will be a substantial theme for Republicans in this race. Already, Obama’s going after McCain on his dubious votes is being repeatedly characterized as “political attacks” supposedly unbecoming of Obama. Hillary Clinton attempted this strategy as well. If you’re promoting yourself as a different kind of politician who can reach consensus with the opposition, it must be off limits for you to criticize opponents and defend yourself, lest you be labeled a Hypocrite in flaming letters.
If McCain keeps harping on this without more substance to his complaints, it strikes me as a poor strategy.
Since you started this, why don’t you go ahead and tell us what your take on it is?
Yup, I really think the Pubbies are slipping. I think after Bushco they’re really willing to let this one go, with the exception that giving McCain his shot will be a wild card long shot and a chance to say, “See, if you’re a loyal bitch long enough we will give you your chance”.
Not expecting to win, not willing to throw any important resources at a lost cause, but if lightning strikes, it’s a bonus from Heaven (or Hell, depending on perspective, of course).
I do think their attacks are feeble and weak, though. Especially something like this, where they have to straddle the line between “He’s an inexperienced empty suit who can’t handle Washington” and “He’s actually a skilled Washington insider who is totally a slick politician but in a different way from OUR Washington insider slick politician”.
Sure, it’ll work on some, but those are already the people who would throw rocks at Jesus if he had a (D) after his name.
-Joe
I for one am THRILLED to have a Democratic candidate with sharp elbows, a hawk’s eye for threats, a cobra’s reaction time, and bulldog tenacity.
Mixed what?
Anyone who is endorsed by Scarlett Johansson is alright by me.
I think there is some truth in the article about Obama’s ambition and willingness to play politics “as a contact sport” as Obama puts it in his book. Simply put, he doesn’t transcend politics, he simply plays the game very well.
More importantly, I like the way he writes and thinks and he strikes me as a smart, practical man who appears to understand the world well. I The essay simplifies too much and as several people pointed out, throws some pretty wild accusations but is still an interesting read and a welcome change of perspective.
I never thought he transcended politics, Playing the game exceptionally well means he can, if he truly wants to, change the way the game is played. I think we as citizens need to insist this happens.
Except it’s not a change of perspective at all. He’s merely recycling others talking points.
I think you’ve confused Obama with the chimera.
Obama is definitely not taking attacks lying down, as Kerry did. Brooks apparently finds this unfair, to wit, “But- but you guys have to be elitist wimps! No fair fighting back!”
It’s just weird. Brooks apparently doesn’t want Obama to fight back like a politician, but says he isn’t a regular guy. As if Brooks is a regular guy! He looks like a blonde Herbert Kornfeld without the mustache.
I actually think Brooks article is somewhat flattering to Obama. Finally a Democrat who is smart enough and determioned enough to actually fight the Republicans. Sure Brooks writes it like the partisan hack he is, but the undertone is actually positive, Obama is a fighter who can play in the same sandbox as tghe Republicans if need be.
There’s been a confusion of ideas about Obama’s campaign, definitely. The whole Change thing doesn’t mean he’s not going to play politics, it means he’s not going to play the politics that have become status quo in the last decade. Given that he’s a Democrat who’s not going to take crap lying down, I think he already fits the bill.
Actually this is as close as the media will allow themselves to come to an attack piece on Obama. He is comfortably ahead in the polls, so they figure they can afford to buy themselves some credibility by running the piece now. If and when it appears McCain is pulling even, they can then go back to fawning on Obama. And they have something they can point to when the slant of their coverage gets too obvious.
“We’re not biased! We ran an opinion piece six weeks ago when he abandoned his rhetoric about how great public financing was!”
And that will balance off everything else they ever said.
Regards,
Shodan
Because we all know the press is unfairly brutal to John McCain.
Have you already forgotten the Rev. Wright flap, “Bittergate,” etc., etc.?
I love the Media myths…
Liberals whine whenever their candidate is attacked by the Conservative Bias in the media… Conservatives whine whenever their candidate is attacked by the Liberal Bias in the media… neither side sees how obviously stupid it is for The Media as a whole to be biased for or against anything other than for ratings and profit and against losing either of those things.
Why can’t everyone just realize that there are Liberal and Conservative media sources in roughly equivalent size, scope, and impact and stop whining about how if their best-friend-forever Candidate gets roughed up a little bit it must be some massive, expensive, and incredibly subtle conspiracy rather than just a grab at ratings and therefore advertising dollars by a bunch of corporate whores?
Yes. Inherent in the notion of “change” is a relative measure, not adherence to an absolute standard. The question is not “Is Obama a saint?”, it is “Is Obama better than what we’ve come to expect from a politician?”.
IMHO, yes, he’s far better. I’m sure to be disappointed on some counts, but then that’s the nature of politics.
Not always. Rupert Murdoch, for instance, appears to have an ideological agenda separate from bottom-line concerns, and that permeates every media outlet he owns.