The Michelle Obama problem

Is the Obama campaign's reaction (or lack thereof) to the Michelle Obama "proud of my country" kerfuffle disturbingly similar to John Kerry's initial non-response to the Swift Boaters? Jonathan Martin thinks so, and I fear he may have a point.

Personally, I think it's pretty obvious what Michelle Obama meant. Even before Barack Obama said this...

"What she meant was, this is the first time that she's been proud of the politics of America. Because she's pretty cynical about the political process, and with good reason, and she's not alone. But she has seen large numbers of people get involved in the process, and she's encouraged."

...I figured that's exactly what Michelle was trying to say. Frankly, it's pretty ludicrous to suppose that she actually believes the literal meaning of her words; it's perfectly obvious to a fair-minded observer that this was a gaffe, a botched line, not a revelatory Freudian slip exposing the dark inner reaches of Michelle Obama's unpatriotic soul. But the facial implausibility of the less charitable explanation won't stop people like Rush Limbaugh from saying things like, "Doesn't it just grate on you that liberals in general are not proud of their country, period?" Nor will it stop those statements from damaging Obama's campaign (if only by firing up Republicans to levels of hold-your-nose-and-vote-for-McCain-ism that at least begin to approach what we'd see if the likely opponent was Hillary Clinton.)

In a way, this is a lot like a different John Kerry controversy: the kerfuffle over his "botched joke" in 2006 about American soldiers and/or President Bush getting "stuck in Iraq." As I wrote at the time, it was perfectly obvious what Kerry meant, that the whole controversy was -- at its substantive core -- much ado about nothing. Yet it destroyed Kerry's '08 presidential ambitions (thank goodness) and caused him to basically slink off the stage lest he damage Democratic prospects in that year's election.

I suspect that most Americans are inclined to be more forgiving of a gaffe by a presidential candidate's wife -- particularly when it comes nine months before the general election -- than they were of a gaffe by a once and future (or so we thought then) candidate. But to be forgiven, you have to actually ask for forgiveness. Instead of doing that, Team Obama let this thing fester for a while. Now they're finally starting to do some damage control, but I'm afraid the damage may already be done. In a Feiler Faster/Two Electorates world, the public absorbs sensational, controversial news -- the type with sufficient oomph to break through the bubble of political apathy that surrounds most people in their everyday lives -- very quickly, yet is very slow to absorb more mundane contradictory information. So when something like this happens, you have to strike fast in an effort to dilute the impact of the initial information while it's still being absorbed into the public consciousness. A full news cycle later, it may already be too late for that. Barack Obama, already a crypto-Muslim Manchurian Candidate in the eyes of many, may now be a crypto-Muslim Manchurian Candidate who steals other people's speeches and whose wife hates America. Great.

P.S. The plagiarism thing would normally be too arcane to break through the apathy bubble. But although I wasn't listening to talk radio or watching cable news yesterday, I suspect it may have piggybacked in with the Michelle Obama thing, thus allowing a silly quasi-scandal to become a potentially indelible part of the broader public's impressions of Obama.

Comments

[Marty West]

Let's not forget her hair.

[CD]

Not to mention this, which is, at best, very embarrassing for Obama:

Hillary Clinton and her presidential campaign Wednesday pounced on a recent television interview with a surrogate of Barack Obama who was unable to identify a single accomplishment in the Illinois Democrat's Senate record.

"My good friend Congresswoman Stephanie Tubbs Jones from Ohio represented me on one of the TV programs in the last day or two— some of you may have seen her," Clinton said during a speech at Hunter College in New York City Wednesday. "And she was on against someone representing my opponent and for the first time, actually, the host, asked the representative of my opponent to name one accomplishment."

The interview in question was with Tubbs Jones and Texas State Sen. Kirk Watson on MSNBC Tuesday night. Host Chris Matthews asked Watson, a supporter of Obama, to name the Illinois senator's chief legislative accomplishments.

"Well, I am not going to be able to name you specific items of legislative accomplishment," Watson said.

Asked if it was a problem he was unable to name any of Obama's accomplishments, Watson said, "Well no I don't think it is. Because I think one of the things that Sen. Obama does is he inspires. He's able to lay out a vision, he's able to lay out solutions."

The Clinton campaign called the interview "Must See TV," and e-mailed a clip of it to reporters Wednesday morning — shortly before the New York Democrat mentioned it in her speech.

“That is all we’re asking," Clinton also said of the interview in her speech. "We’re asking to compare our records. We’re asking to compare our years of service. We’re asking to compare our ideas, our solutions."

Also in her speech Wednesday, Clinton maintained her campaign is moving forward.

“It is time to get real, “ Clinton continued, “to get real about how we actually win this election…It is time to move from good words to good works – from sound bites to sound solutions.”

Commenting on Obama's 10 straight victories, Clinton also conceded the Illinois senator "has had a couple of good weeks."

[CORNHUSKERS 94 95 & 97]

If any 'reasonable' person has taken any time to read some of his wifes interviews they would know that she hates politics with a passion and thats why she said that Obama only gets this one shot to be President because she will not go thru this horse race again.

Non issue

[Andrew]

CD, I agree, Obama's left a very thin public record, and what he has left has been rated as among the most liberal politicians at the state and national levels. The example you cite is just another aspect of that underlying vulnerability.

[Alasdair]

Brendan

The reason that Michelle Obama's words are biting his campaign in the proverbial fundament is because the MSM has gotten used to nit-picking Republican speeches to death while often taking brief poortions out of context ... and the Democrat side didn't complain about the nit-picking being nit-picking - rather, they gloated about it ... the classic examples are the MSM's response to Bushisms - where one knew immediately what he meant, in spite of his classic dyslexic use of words ...

Now, with the MSM having gotten used to doing this, the technique is being applied to the Democratic side politicians, too ...

It's called What is Sauce for the Gander, is Sauce for the Goose ... (and, yes, even-more-Elder Loy, it has to be that way, lest there come into existence a Gander Gap) ...

You and I both agree that in an ideal world, such words should not be given the importance they are being given ... the reality, today, is that any politician needs to be thoughtful about what he or she says ...

And, before anyone leaps up and down to say that Michelle Obama is not a politician, by her own agreement to give speeches on behalf of her husband, she chose to make herself a valid political target ...

Senator Obama, himself, seems to be in the position of shooting himself in the foot, with his "researching" of speeches which he then uses, himself ... for what it is worth, IMn-s-HO, Governor Deval Patrick delivers the words better than Senator Obama does ... (grin) ...

Again, in an ideal world, it would not be a big deal - it would be accepted as an homage from someone who shares the beliefs and values ...

In *this* world, however, since the MSM was encouraged to cry "Plagiarism" whenever it could find a Republican politician who echoed the sentiments of another politician, and the Democratic side stood back and said effectively nothing, the Democratic side are now being hoist by *that* petard, too ...

Again, before anyone else mentions it, yup, the MSM did publicise Senator Biden's 'plagiarism' of Neil Pillock's (sorry, Neil Kinnock's) speech - but that was mostly because of the stupidity of copying (without attribution) a speech wherein the sentiment/question asked/punchline/memorable sound-bite turned out to be "You don't think that that means that I am thick/dumb, do you ?" ...

Yup - in an ideal world, such things would be non-issues ... in *this* world, Michelle and Barack Obama are reaping what their political party and its supporters have been sowing for years ...

[yea]

lets be realistic here folks. the people who are making an issue out of this were not likely to vote for obama anyway. i dont think any potential obama voters are listening to idiots like limbaugh anyway (isnt this the guy who got fired from espn for trying to race-bait during football pregame shows?). this is pretty much a non-issue. obama has handled the negative attacks so far really well. when does the point arrive where people start to reailze that obama had assempled an incredibly talented campaign staff. i think this reflects well on his ability to lead the country, as the people picked to fill important positions have an extraordinary amount of influence on the country.

i for one also find it ironic that anti-obama people accuse him of having a lack of substance. yet feebily attempt to attack him with irrelevant "gotcha" incidents that have little substance and have shown no ability to slow down his momentum. plagiarism-gate, a supporter looking stupid on tv, and a misstatement by his wife seem to be the best they can do. if this is what obama can look forward to in the general i dont see the o-momentum stopping. what's next? maybe they will start circulating the absurd " barack hussein obama is a muslim" emails again.

obama has laid his platform out in vivid detail, much moreso than mccain, and im sure there is plenty there that his oppenents can disagree with and attack. instead, whenever anyone talks about how inspiring or exciting obama is, or how they connect with his "change" and "hope" messages, they counter that obamna has a "lack of substance". yet, they attack without substance themselves, picking up on stupid non-issues like the ones discussed above. this is kind ridiculous when his platform is readily avaiable to anyone who wants to see it. seems like some people are trying to have their cake and eat it too. they want to dismiss people who like obama for his superficial qualities yet bash him for incidents that are just as, if not more, superficial themselves. seems to me like they just dont know how to react a candidate the likes no one has ever seen before.

[Joe Mama]

Michelle Obama has a big butt.

[Joe Loy]

JM, yeah she does but some say Hillary Clinton has Two of those: (1) her own, plus (2) Bill.

:>

[Shaun]

all of Obama's accomplishments as a politician, according to his website:
-------------------------------------
"In the Illinois State Senate, this meant working with both Democrats and Republicans to help working families get ahead by creating programs like the state Earned Income Tax Credit, which in three years provided over $100 million in tax cuts to families across the state. He also pushed through an expansion of early childhood education, and after a number of inmates on death row were found innocent, Senator Obama worked with law enforcement officials to require the videotaping of interrogations and confessions in all capital cases.

In the U.S. Senate, he has focused on tackling the challenges of a globalized, 21st century world with fresh thinking and a politics that no longer settles for the lowest common denominator. His first law was passed with Republican Tom Coburn, a measure to rebuild trust in government by allowing every American to go online and see how and where every dime of their tax dollars is spent. He has also been the lead voice in championing ethics reform that would root out Jack Abramoff-style corruption in Congress.

As a member of the Veterans' Affairs Committee, Senator Obama has fought to help Illinois veterans get the disability pay they were promised, while working to prepare the VA for the return of the thousands of veterans who will need care after Iraq and Afghanistan. Recognizing the terrorist threat posed by weapons of mass destruction, he traveled to Russia with Republican Dick Lugar to begin a new generation of non-proliferation efforts designed to find and secure deadly weapons around the world. And knowing the threat we face to our economy and our security from America's addiction to oil, he's working to bring auto companies, unions, farmers, businesses and politicians of both parties together to promote the greater use of alternative fuels and higher fuel standards in our cars."
----------------------------------------

so pretty much, he was involved in some wealth-redistribution activity, along with some law-enforcement reformation, in EIGHT YEARS in the IL state senate. granted, i'm sure that's not all he was involved with in those 8 years, but he'd be dumb not to include more if there was anything else of any significance. so my question is... what exactly was he doing for those 8 years? (besides working with and being funded by criminals of chicago)

in the us senate, he's worked on getting the government's accounting posted online... and he's been a member of the veterans' affairs committee.

ok... so it's not just "a supporter looking stupid on tv"... nor is it just the fact that i haven't heard a single Obama supporter (either politician, focus group memeber, or other) name a single accomplishment when asked. it's the fact that Obama really doesn't have much to list under the "accomplishments" category. that's not exactly a "non-substance" attack.

[Sandy Underpants]

Politicians haven't been nit-picked to death in their speeches all along? Amazing that it's only been republicans up until now. But onto a more serious topic, am I the only one dreaming of a B&D leather 3-way with Michelle Obama and Condi Rice? What a woman! What a couple of women!!!

[Dave]

I concur with Brendan, in that I don't think either of these stories - plagiarism or Michelle's lack of patriotism - will have much endurance in the media.

For my part, I am more troubled by the self-reverential tone of Mrs. Obama's statement - something that has become pervasive in the Obama campaign. I agree with Brendan, in that it's implausible to think that Michelle Obama has never before, in fact, been proud of her country, or proud that she's American. But, it's very plausible that she's never been as proud as she is now, that her husband is on the brink of the Democratic nomination for President - and at the head of a quasi-messianic movement that preaches lines like "We Are the Ones We Have Been Waiting For."

So, what's wrong with being proud of your husband, and finally proud of the country so much in his thrall? It's hard to say. I dare say, though, that Mrs. Obama might be conflating the two subjects of her admiration.

[Joe Loy]

"...It's called What is Sauce for the Gander, is Sauce for the Goose ... (and, yes, even-more-Elder Loy, it has to be that way, lest there come into existence a Gander Gap) ..."

LOL Alasdair :) Now listen here, oh thou rare & mystical Northern Capercaillie of the Lowlands ;}, when you've set eyes (as I have :) on both the town of Gander, Newfoundland & the Gap of Dunloe between Macgillycuddy's Reeks ;> and the Purple Mountains of Killarney, you can Talk but until then just quit yer Honking would ye. (Ducks & waddles off, for to wet grinning bill with a wee drappie of the Sauce :)

A gaffe is when a politician tells the truth.

[David K.]

I thought a gaffe was a baby giraffe

[Joe Loy]

To me, the whole "plagiarism" business is completely Bogus ~ and I Don't think it will have any lingering effect.

"Not to mention this, which is, at best, very embarrassing for Obama:

"Hillary Clinton and her presidential campaign Wednesday pounced on a recent television interview with a surrogate of Barack Obama who was unable to identify a single accomplishment in the Illinois Democrat's Senate record..."

CD, I was watching MSNBC's Primary coverage and so I Saw the Chris Matthews interview of State Sen. Kirk Watson. I didn't think it was, even at Worst, "very embarrassing for Obama." I thought it was utterly Humilating for Senator Watson ~ showing himself up as being totally Unprepared for his Surrogate role & thus doing a verycrappy job of it ~ but that's All. Why should it embarrass Obama? So, his campaign sent out a Poor choice to go up against the redoubtable Congresswoman Stephanie Tubbs Jones. So what? These things happen. Says Nothing about Obama.

And now: Brendan. ;}

"Frankly, it's pretty ludicrous to suppose that she actually believes the literal meaning of her words; it's perfectly obvious to a fair-minded observer that this was a gaffe, a botched line, not a revelatory Freudian slip exposing the dark inner reaches of Michelle Obama's unpatriotic soul. But the facial implausibility of the less charitable explanation won't stop people like Rush Limbaugh..." [etc.]

Brendan, I am Frankly ;> baffled. No, really. / Setting aside your deliberate (and rather Good :) rhetorical hyperbole, about her freudian Slip Showing the darkling Depths of her treasonous Core ;], I honestly do Not see why it is Pretty Ludicrous for anyone to think that she might have meant Exactly what she said, Perfectly Obvious that she did Not, and Facially Implausible to figure that perhaps what it Is, is: simply that for the first time in her adult life she feels Really Proud of her country. (Note her emphatic "really". See, Intensely. Passionately. Deleriously. :)

Nor, I hasten to add, do I see Why (if indeed she said what she meant & vice-versa) the Recentness of her feeling of Real Pride should necessarily bring condemnation upon her ~ let alone on her husband. (Yeah, I know, it Would in some quarters ~ but still I say it Needn't.)

"I suspect that most Americans are inclined to be more forgiving of a gaffe by a presidential candidate's wife... than they were of a gaffe by a once and future (or so we thought then) candidate [John Kerry]..."

There (positing that's it's a Gaffe) I agree. / Notwithstanding that Mrs. Obama would almost certainly be a very activist & influential presidential partner as First Lady. / As, I gather, would Mrs. McCain ~ who has stepped forth from the darkling shadows :} of her customary Power-behind-the-Scenes campaign role to assure us all that She, for Her part, has Always been proud of America. ;> / Therefore as regards modern candidates' politically-powerful Spouses, let us make this Thought Experiment: if Mister Clinton were to speak out publicly on how he feels about the USA and how long he has felt that way, that would be All Right with You, right? :)

waw haw haw haw / woops! Incoming! / dives for cover... ;}

[PenguinSix]

The thing that gets me about this potential first lady is she seems to honestly and truly believe her own propaganda.

Scary...

[thebeef]

You said it Penguin.

Like Brendan, I think the remark was completely innocent. I think she got carried away and overstated her excitement over the fervor her husband's rhetoric has engendered. It's lunacy to believe that this is actually the first time Mrs. Obama has been proud of her country.

That said, I think its ridiculous to be proud of the fervor her husband has engendered! With all due respect to Brendan, this love affair with Obama is reminiscent of a teeny-bopper's crush on a pop star. It's purely emotional, bordering on blind, and completely over the top. And, in my opinion, far more frightening than inspiring.

[sbk]

Mrs. Obama's word's were from a prepared speech.

This was not some off the cuff, no chance to consider remark or slip up said on the fly to some reporter. It was a verbal element that not only she pre-approved, but more than likely others in the campaign did as well. For me it isn't so much the sentiment as it is the reflection of the self absorption that seems to radiate from the campaign.

[thebeef]

sbk,

On what are you basing your assertion that the remark was a prepared statement?

[Becky]

Beef, why is the public's seeming adoration of Obama so scary? Don't we want a charismatic president capable of inspiring the populous? After all, that's why we have a system of checks and balances, to make sure that one engaging leader won't guide the lemming nation off a cliff into WWIII.

[Becky]

And as somebody who has a bit of experience with a quick tongue getting me into trouble, I think Michelle Obama desperately needs to THINK about the potential impact of her statements BEFORE she speaks. I'm 25 and I've started reigning in my off the cuff remarks a bit. She's older and in a position to become one of the most visible women in the country. She needs to cultivate an intelligent message that resounds with the graceful elegance that Americans have come to expect from our first ladies.

I mean, say what you will about George HW Bush and Dubya Bush, but both Barbara and Laura are classy ladies.

[FzxGkJssFrk]

I'm with Dave, sort of. I'm not bothered so much by the lack-of-patriotism angle (and I'm not entirely convinced by the Barack/Brendan spin on this... there's been nothing in American electoral politics to be proud of in the last 30 years??) as by the rich-spoiled-brat narcissism angle.

[Andrew]

Beef, why is the public's seeming adoration of Obama so scary?

General admiration and like of a president is not scary; women swooning and fainting in campaign event after campaign event over a presidential candidate using messianic rhetoric is.

[thebeef]

Yes, Becky, I'd agree it CAN be good to have an inspired populus. But it depends on why and how the people are inspired.

Sure, it was good for the German population in the 1930's to be inspired, but it was also problematic (to put it lightly) that Hilter and NAZIsm were the forces driving their inspiration.

Now, I'm not saying Obama is Hitler...far, far from it. But I am saying that inspiration, in and of itself, is not necessarily a good thing.

And I think it gets scary when people can't explain why they are inspired other than to describe the shivers and goose-bumps they feel when Obama speaks. Their inspiration is purely emotional, not rational.

Read some of the articles quoted in .

Frankly, it's disturbing that people seem to believe that Barrack Obama--the man--can solve the nation's problems. Mind you, I'm not saying that it's disturbing that people believe that his IDEAS can "save" the nation. There's nothing wrong with that at all. That's why people traditionally vote for a given candidate. But that doesn't seem to be the case here.

It seems to be that people believe (and it's quite disturbing) that Obama can personally, as an individual, "save" the nation, by "healing our souls."

Many, many people aren't drawn to him based on his policies...they are drawn to him because of his charisma, because of his words, becasue of his message.

Brendan, for one, seems quite taken with Obama. Now, perhaps I've missed it, (I very well might have) but I haven't read Brendan praising Obama's policies or positions on the issues...but I have read a lot about how Brendan thinks Obama is a great speaker. That's par for the course for Obama supporters.

It was the same way when he ran for the Senate in Illinois. Everyone loved him and no one knew why. I was a bartender in the Chicago area during his Senate campaign, and I'd ask people why they liked him. the response: "He's going to be president someday." People said that all the time, but no one knew where he stood on the issues.

And what's more, it's creepy how his followers are so entrhalled with his image. When was the last time in American politics where numerous supporters carried large portraits of the candidate to rallies? It's like something out of the middle east, where supporters proudly raise portraits of their favorite ayatollah or mullah! For crying out loud, Obama supporters, like the woman in the bible who touched the hem of Jesus' garment, reach out to touch Barrack as though they are seeking salvation!

Watching Obama walk through a campaign rally is like watching the Pope walk through St. Peter's.

And I think that kind of demagoguery is very creepy in the setting of American politics.

[thebeef]

sorry, i meant to link

http://www.obamamessiah.blogspot.com

[Jim]

I'd be willing to bet if you asked your average Clinton supporter what she's accomplished, they wouldn't be able to answer that either.

Obama has accomplished a lot in the U.S. Senate. Shaun's glossing over of important issues like non-pro indicates an unwillingness to give Obama credit where credit is due.

[David K.]

Yeah cause none of our inspiring Presidents have ever done a good job. Roosevelt, Lincoln, Washington, Eisenhower, Kennedy, Clinton, failures all...

[Lauren]

Thebeef, what I'm more interested in is WHY people are so enamored w/Obama. Yes he's eloquent and has that boyish charm, etc. But I think you're right that the swooning and mass hysteria is a little much. I have been very impressed by his campaign - definitely smart and finely tuned - but it doesn't seem to be worthy of all the fandom.

The interesting question is why are people like this? Inherently I think it's because Obama has captured the right message at the right time: people are tired and disillusioned by the body politic and want to be inspired by something - someone. Obama has walked into that spotlight and seized it for all its worth. I can't blame him.

So I'm not so sure it's him, per se, as it is the public's need to grasp onto something in a time of failing mortgages, weakening dollar, and two wars. The news right now is not exactly bright. So while "we are the change we seek" certainly seems a little creepy, it plays into the very heart of what his campaign is about: tapping into an electorate that wants to be excited and believe things will turn around- that needs to believe these things. In such a context, policy becomes secondary and the "hope" becomes primary. I don't think Obama is incapable of spouting out policy or talking up his past accomplishments but I think he realized it isn't (or wasn't?) what the people wanted. They wanted to be part of a "movement." Perhaps that will change as the race tightens up around him.

[Joe Loy]

Ike was Inspiring? :} I actually Remember him, David K., and while he Was a prettygood President, I don't recall the Inspirational part. / Perhaps you're thinking of his eloquent VP. :>

Becky & the beef, in regular English it's not "the populous" [that's the Adjective] and it's not "an inspired populus" [that's the Latin]. It's "populace." / love, Vox Pickii :)

[Joe Loy]

"... women swooning and fainting in campaign event after campaign event over a presidential candidate using messianic rhetoric is" [scary].

Andrew, are there websites yet about how Obama is the Antichrist? I bet there Are. :|

[CD]

I'm still choking on the comment that Barbara Bush was a 'classy' lady. At least in regards to the manner in which the word 'classy' was being used. Read a biography of that woman please and then revise that statement. I have found her tongue amusing at times, but that woman puts her foot in her mouth like no other. Hell, she could give McCain a run for his money.

[Alasdair]

"Becky & the beef, in regular English it's not "the populous" [that's the Adjective] and it's not "an inspired populus" [that's the Latin]. It's "populace." / love, Vox Pickii :)" - a classic example of the origin of the expression "The Pedants Are Revolting !" ...

Actually, Becky mean "Populus", the interesting world-building game, did she not ?

[PenguinSix]

"Don't we want a charismatic president capable of inspiring the populous? After all, that's why we have a system of checks and balances, to make sure that one engaging leader won't guide the lemming nation off a cliff into WWIII."

It was an "charismatic capable of inspiring the populus" that led to WWII....

[Brendan Loy]

Okay, I know it's tempting after seven years of liberals saying "Bush = Hitler," but this "Obama = Hitler" stuff is really getting old. Yes, I understand the point you're making (and I take thebeef at his word when he says he's "not saying Obama is Hitler...far, far from it," and I assume the same applies to PenguinSix and others). But it's just a drastically over-the-top way of making that case. Surely there are less drastic examples of cases where charisma went south. Anyway, the first one or two times I read this argument made, it was a mildly interesting, albeit unnecessarily over-the-top, point. But it's starting to get ridiculous now.

[Joe Mama]

If the point can be made that inspiration just for the sake of inspiration is not a good thing in and of itself, then perhaps we can finally come around to the fact that change simply for the sake of change isn't always a good thing, either. Change to what? is a question that the strongest advocates for "change" rarely take time to consider. If anything, you just get a stock answer such as, "Well, anything is better than what we've got now," which is of course silly hyperbole. There are countless ways in which society, gov't, etc. can be made worse than they are now.

Just one other nit to pick: Obama likely isn't the first pol to have members of the audience collapse at one of his rallies . . . he's just the first to constantly stop everything and give the patently self-serving blow-by-blow for everyone else to see and hear how much he cares.

[thebeef]

I know this is too late and this thread is dead, but I'm still going to respond.

My post was not meant as a criticism of Obama. My post was a criticism of Obama's supporters.

I don't think there's anything wrong with a politician being charismatic. If they're any good at being a politician, they should be charismatic!!

I think there IS something wrong with a voting base that supports a candidate ONLY or MAINLY because of a candidate's charisma.

[Andrew]

Yeah cause none of our inspiring Presidents have ever done a good job. Roosevelt, Lincoln, Washington, Eisenhower, Kennedy, Clinton, failures all...

I can take Reagan and Kennedy as being inspiring, but really now, forget your politics -- did anyone really use the term "inspiring" to describe Bill Clinton? He had some good favorability ratings in the 1990s, but I don't think "inspiring" was a quality listed that made people like him.

Then there is Eisenhower. I'm sorry, but Joe Loy is dead right on this one -- when it comes to inspiring rhetoric, Ike was no JFK, and he was no George Patton either.

FDR may have been "inspiring", but I think that had more to do with the fact that radio was new and he was the first to use the medium to address the nation on a regular basis (his so-called "fireside chats").

Lincoln was a tremendous president and he wrote some very powerful, moving speeches, but again, I strongly suspect that "inspiring" was not an adjective used often in his day when that era's populace were talking about President Lincoln.

What I said above for Lincoln is even more true for Washington. He was a great president, sure, but Washington was not known to have much affinity for speaking to the masses, and if you read his greatest writings and speeches, they do not have much rhetorical flair and have very long, meandering sentence structures that take effort to follow and eventually induce sleep.

So David, I sure hope you know your math equations better than you know your presidents.