Krauthammer Gives The Race To Obama
One thing to watch for: Prominent conservatives essentially conceding that the race is over. This morning, none other than Charles Krauthammer waves the white flag:
Part of reassurance is intellectual. Like Palin, he's a rookie, but in his 19 months on the national stage he has achieved fluency in areas in which he has no experience. In the foreign policy debate with McCain, as in his July news conference with French President Nicolas Sarkozy, Obama held his own -- fluid, familiar and therefore plausibly presidential.Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr. famously said of Franklin Roosevelt that he had a "second-class intellect, but a first-class temperament." Obama has shown that he is a man of limited experience, questionable convictions, deeply troubling associations (Jeremiah Wright, William Ayers, Tony Rezko) and an alarming lack of self-definition -- do you really know who he is and what he believes? Nonetheless, he's got both a first-class intellect and a first-class temperament. That will likely be enough to make him president.
As if that weren't enough, Krauthammer also compares Obama's temperament to that of Ronald Reagan, causing no shortage of wailing and gnashing of teeth at McCain's Arlington HQ. Not exactly the message the McCain team wanted from conservative megaphones on the morning after Sarah Palin's big makeover debate.
Looks like he did his best to slash and burn before conceding the territory.
October 3, 2008 10:32 AM | Reply | Permalink
Yeah. That, and he's trying to lower expectations. Why anyone cares what that crank spouts...
Dollars to doughnuts (I'll take doughnuts) that's prelude to a "McCain Miraculously Mavericky" comeback and "Spontaneously Newfound Enthusiasm and Reassurance" from Republican pundits set to occur in mid October.
October 3, 2008 2:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
btw, having said that, of course it's over for McCain. Palin did fine as a spunky soccer mom. Some people might not feel ill every time she winks or says "you betcha." Some hick probably finds it endearing in the same way Bush was a "Folksy Straight Talker" (tm).
But Presidential? Does anyone beside Bush's remaining fan base of young earthers and assorted hicks and wingnuts seriously believe she looked Presidential? In the slightest?
Democrat or Republican, who will deny that President Palin would be an absolute nightmare to make Bush seem like a wonky micromanaging genius and Brownie of NOLA fame appear a visionary technocrat. What are the odds given McCain's age? Not acceptable.
Republicans should do themselves and their party a favor and hope McCain/Palin aren't elected. With this economy and those two espousing the same tired playbook, it'd be the surest way to kill the GOP for a generation.
October 3, 2008 2:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
HAHAHAHA....begrudging respect.
October 3, 2008 10:36 AM | Reply | Permalink
You gotta love it: First rate in the two most important measures of a president ... and I guess that's good enough. Ass.
http://pufferfish.typepad.com/
October 3, 2008 10:38 AM | Reply | Permalink
Well, when the only tool you have is a Krauthammer ...
October 3, 2008 11:29 AM | Reply | Permalink
Hee hee! I likee!
I love the sound of Republican wailing and gnashing of teeth in the morning!
October 3, 2008 11:41 AM | Reply | Permalink
. . . hit the nail on the head.
Even if one does get one's assinine thumb caught between ass and hammer.
Wright!? Ayers!? Um . . . what have those to do with anything? Shall we bring up Ronnie "John Birch" Reagan?
October 6, 2008 5:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
Greg - nice "white flag" reference! Keep up the good work.
October 3, 2008 10:41 AM | Reply | Permalink
Politics makes such strange bedfellows.
October 3, 2008 10:42 AM | Reply | Permalink
I wouldn't take too much solace in conservatives conceding anything. It's one of their ultimate hail-Marys: pretend that all is lost and concede the race in hopes of giving the other side a false sense of security thereby trying to lower voter turn out on the the other side.
October 3, 2008 10:44 AM | Reply | Permalink
They tried this in 2006. It didn't work out too well then.
October 3, 2008 10:45 AM | Reply | Permalink
Conservatives tried pretending as if all were lost in 2006 to lead the left into complacency? Are we talking about the same 2006 when Karl Rove brazenly insisted that "the math" showed that the Republicans were going to squeak out narrow victory to retain control of Congress? If anything, I remember 2006 as a time when the right tried desperately to maintain the fiction that they stood a chance so as to avoid a true bloodbath from right-wingers growing so dispirited that they simply sat at home on election day.
October 3, 2008 10:59 AM | Reply | Permalink
It shows the error the MSM makes when they conflate Karl Rove believes... with Karl Rove says he believes...
October 3, 2008 12:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
you are on point, concede the race in hopes that Dems will believe the hype and stay home Nov. 4th.
October 3, 2008 12:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
I really wonder if a lot of Republicans ever actually wanted to win this race. If they're smart, they'd rather let the Democrats do the unpopular work of cleaning up the mess they leave behind, then run against them later for doing exactly that.
October 3, 2008 10:45 AM | Reply | Permalink
Seems like their plan, precisely. Works for me. We get 3 years to get things headed in the right direction, then 1 year to run on our good start.
Where do I sign?
October 3, 2008 10:47 AM | Reply | Permalink
Isn't that always the republican's strategy (or at least their plan B)? Indeed, they really could not have been more transparent in last week's house vote that this is what they were really trying for. They wanted to get the democrats to pass that stinker of a bailout so that the economy would not absolutely tank, but they all wanted simultaneously to vote against it so that when the economy continued to slide (as it will, bailout or no) they could run against the "failed policies of Pelosi democrats." Unfortunately for them, they were too clever by half. They failed to co-ordinate who got to vote against it vs who had to vote for it, and the end result is that their caucus (which was only ever supposed to supply a minority share of the necessary votes) could not even supply the pittance of votes they were supposed to supply.
October 3, 2008 11:04 AM | Reply | Permalink
I'm wondering, just a little, if Nancy Pelosi may have totally played Republicans on Monday. I know that everyone is laughing at Republicans complaining about her speech, but what if she did that on purpose? To rile them up? Maybe she gambled that they wouldn't, in fact, vote in the numbers that Boehner needed if she poked them just a bit.
Look at the result: Boehner looks really weak, Republicans look like jerks.
Maybe too Machiavellian.
October 3, 2008 11:09 AM | Reply | Permalink
That Pelosi allowed the vote without all the GOPers she needed seemed inept to me at the time, and to give her credit for what in retrospect has benefited Democrats at the expense of Republicans seems to me a bit of a stretch.
October 3, 2008 11:14 AM | Reply | Permalink
I couldn't agree with you more ... Pelosi is inept.
October 3, 2008 12:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
Someone (wish I could remember who) made a pretty cogent post about that same thing. I started off leaning toward the implausibility of it, but the more I read, the more convinced I was that it was likely and possibly the shrewdest play. Put John McCain and GWB on the hook for failure, use the impact of that failure to shape public opinion on the potentially disasterous results of inaction, modify the Bill, punt to the Senate, come back in a week. Pelosi is not to be underestimated. The right has sought to demonize her because that's what they do. The left has complained bitterly because she didn't torch congress to get us out of Iraq immediately in 2006. But what if we come out of the 2008 election with strengthened majorities in both houses and an Obama-Biden administration with a mandate? Doesn't that inherently put us closer to getting more of what we want than the alternatives?
October 3, 2008 12:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
I agree with that post from a couple days ago.
Now, its Obama's job to make sure everyone knows that the Repugs and McCain let it happen.
October 3, 2008 12:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
Brilliant strategy, Nancy! We're all standing and applauding.
Except for the hundreds of soldiers and Marines who have died in Iraq since January 2007.
And the thousands missing an arm or hand, or a leg, or their sight or hearing, or the brain lobe to comprehend, or the psychic strength to care.
Up to January 2007, all those destroyed lives were on Smirky. Since then, they're all on you, Nancy.
Fucking Bitch.
October 3, 2008 8:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
CT Voter is on to something.
The Democrats' offer to the House Republican leadership was: we'll back a version of the Bush bailout if you deliver a majority of your members.
The minority rank-and-file balked at taking any ownership of the crisis.
Pelosi did a head count, saw the Republicans would vote overwhelmingly no, and told her Blue Dogs they were free to vote their conscience the first time around.
Since the initial bill was going down anyway, she also felt free to denounce the de-regulators -- but, despite their claims, that didn't really cost her any Republican votes.
She might well have been able to ram the bill through, but then the Democrats would have owned the bailout.
When the porked-up bill returned to the House, many more Republicans fell into bipartisan line -- but it looks like Boehner still couldn't round up a majority of his caucus. Weak.
It cost the country a few days and another trillion or so in paper losses, but Pelosi showed she can play hardball.
October 3, 2008 3:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
Second
October 3, 2008 11:13 AM | Reply | Permalink
I don't think it'll work for them, though. Obama's biggest problem going in is that he's an unknown. This lets people concoct all sorts of ridiculous smears against him--that he's a crypto-Muslim, that he refuses to salute the flag, that he isn't tough enough (c'mon--he beat Hillary. How much tougher do they want?).
But once we've had 4 years of President Obama--heck, even after the first 2 years--and people's worst fears aren't realized, then all that fear will go away. Even if we do have a recession that's hard to pull out of, the blame will be on Bush and the question will be how much worse it would have been with McCain. Of course, Iraq will be a mess when we pull out. But again, the blame will be on Bush.
Meanwhile, in 2010, Obama won't have to fundraise for his own campaign, so he'll be able to go around the country campaigning for other Democrats in tight races. So I think there may be a big opportunity for the Dems to _gain_ congressional seats in 2010 with Obama in the White House.
So yeah, losing the White House would have been a good strategy for the Republicans, especially if they had managed to lose it to someone like Hillary Clinton, who comes into it with baggage they can exploit (not that she wouldn't have been a very capable commander in chief). But they needed to do it a year ago at least. Now, everything that goes right will be credited to Obama's leadership, and everything that goes wrong will be Bush's fault. And not because the Democrats have spun it that way, but rather because we will know it from experience.
October 3, 2008 11:26 AM | Reply | Permalink
"Conservatives" like the sour Dr. Krauthammer hate John McCain. Period.
October 3, 2008 11:57 AM | Reply | Permalink
That worked really well for Herbert Hoover, didn't it?
The trick for Democrats is to go beyond simply responding to the mess Republicans left, and seize this once-in-a-generation opportunity to forge a new governing agenda.
Hillary would have been a solid nominee if all we were looking for was competence in cleaning up the mess. But Obama has the vision to innovate a new future for the Democratic Party and the nation.
October 3, 2008 2:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
I don't believe it's 100 per cent true, but I think we should start repeating: "Obama is the black, liberal, Democrat Ronald Reagan." Just to cause some heads to burst.
October 3, 2008 10:48 AM | Reply | Permalink
No, it's only about 85 percent true.
October 3, 2008 10:59 AM | Reply | Permalink
NO! NO! AND FUCK NO! THERE IS NO FUCKING COMPARISON BETWEEN RAYGUN AND OBAMA.
Raygun had a second-class intellect and a Sarah Palid temperament.
Obama does indeed have a first class intellect and a first class temperament. He has a coherent AND CONSISTENT world view. You know where he stands because he stood there last week, last month, last year. You know where he's going because you know where he's been. This idea that Obama is undefined is true ONLY in the sense that the Reich have failed to define him negatively.
October 3, 2008 11:13 AM | Reply | Permalink
The important thing is not to be an intellectual but to know the intellectuals you want to have on your side.
Reagan understood this and hastened the demise of the New Deal coalition, changing the face of American politics in the process: no mean feat.
Like the political left, the American people want robust statist solutions to our problems. Overwhelmingly, we express our support for a single payer health care system and a new WPA to rebuild infrastructure and create jobs. We need a movement to galvanize this support, translate it into real political power and transform policymaking in Washington.
Obama will be under intense pressure to cut back spending in the wake of the massive Wall Street bailout. Unless placed under relentless pressure, an Obama presidency will look like the last six years of the Clinton administration where social services remained under assault.
October 3, 2008 11:30 AM | Reply | Permalink
second
October 3, 2008 12:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
Agreed. Reagan was a lightweight vessel for right-wing ideology.
Obama has a better shot at being the Democrats' Lincoln -- depending on how bad things get in the next few years and how completely he rises to the challenge.
October 3, 2008 4:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
You've got to be kidding me. Reagan? Just remember (remember, remember . . . )
October 3, 2008 12:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yes, I remember. And I only post the above, inspired by the words of the Krauthammer, because it would just be fun to watch Reagan-worshipers heads explode.
But I also realize that there is a flipside to this project -- that it will cause some of your heads to explode as well.
No, no, no -- Obama isn't Reagan. But, like Reagan, he is a master at communicating. No trace of Alzheimer's, though.
October 3, 2008 1:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
Reagan was NOT a master at communicating -- except to those who BOUGHT the PR assertion that he was "the great communicator". He was a great airheaded asshat.
October 6, 2008 5:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
With Joe Klein's piece yesterday and now this, it seems as though the narrative of Obama as the cool, calm, no-nonsense, even keeled candidate is taking hold. Which is perfect for Obama and exactly what he needs & wants.
It is important because it will neutralize the Wright/Ayers/Rezko line of attack. Those attacks are dependent on the idea that Obama is some kind of extremist radical.
But if the prevailing image of him in the media is exactly the opposite of that, the attacks will be readily dismissed.
October 3, 2008 10:50 AM | Reply | Permalink
LOLOLOLOL!!!!!! How's that plan for running on character and personality working out for you, McCain campaign?
It's not about issues, right? It's about Obama's "first-intellect and first-class temperament"!
October 3, 2008 10:54 AM | Reply | Permalink
That's exactly right. It's the most important thing going forward. Ideology is so 20th century.
October 3, 2008 10:58 AM | Reply | Permalink
Hilarious that that particular tactic by McCain's campaign might just bite them in the ass because of Mr. First-class intellect and First-Class Temperament Obama.
October 3, 2008 11:00 AM | Reply | Permalink
"Obama has shown that he is a man of limited experience, questionable convictions, deeply troubling associations (Jeremiah Wright, William Ayers, Tony Rezko) and an alarming lack of self-definition -- do you really know who he is and what he believes?"
What drives me crazy about this kind of statement is how it really describes McCain:
McCain has shown that he is a man of limited experience, questionable convictions, deeply troubling associations (Phil Gramm, Charles Keating, George Bush) and an alarming lack of self-definition -- do you really know who he is and what he believes?
Why don't Democrats harp more on how we cannot trust McCain and at this point have no idea where he stands?
Independents are showing over and over that connecting McCain to Bush is not effective at this point, but I think there's a lot to be said for emphasizing McCain's erratic behavior, untrustworthiness, and flip flopping.
October 3, 2008 10:56 AM | Reply | Permalink
October 3, 2008 11:02 AM | Reply | Permalink
Makes you feel a temptation to describe Krauthammer. But his name already does that!
October 3, 2008 11:32 AM | Reply | Permalink
What drives me crazy on that tired, old "he has no experience but..." line (and there should be an ad out there running as follows):
He had training as a lawyer. Who seriously trusts lawyers?
He only served several terms in the Illinois Senate. How does that prepare you to take charge of national issues — especially in such times of crisis?
He only has one complete term in US Congress — and yet he says that's enough to lead us?
Seriously. Do not be fooled by such inexperience!
Do not vote for ABRAHAM LINCOLN!
October 4, 2008 2:50 AM | Reply | Permalink
From the heart of Hell they will stab at thee...They will spit their dying breath at thee...
October 3, 2008 10:57 AM | Reply | Permalink
Nice
October 3, 2008 11:04 AM | Reply | Permalink
Their "last breath" at thee..
October 3, 2008 11:17 AM | Reply | Permalink
KHAAAAAAN!!!!!!!!!!
October 3, 2008 11:34 AM | Reply | Permalink
MOBY DICK!!!!!
(yes I am well aware of the Star Trek dialog, but it was a virtual line for line aping of a pivotal passage in Melville's Moby Dick)
October 3, 2008 12:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
OBAMA has questionable convictions?! Compared to McCain ("I was against regulations for Wall Street before I was for them"), Obama has been a veritable pillar of granite.
October 3, 2008 11:01 AM | Reply | Permalink
I am way over this "do you really know who he is and what he believes" crap. I think Obama has, because of this persistent line, gone out of his way to make himself known. These guys just want to hang onto something that lets them continue to sow doubt, even though there's nothing there to hang onto. What really burns me is when people like Chris Matthews still repeat this line.
October 3, 2008 11:03 AM | Reply | Permalink
If Krauthammer has seen the light, can Limbaugh be far behind?
October 3, 2008 11:03 AM | Reply | Permalink
Would that be the Rapture I've heard tell about?
October 3, 2008 11:22 AM | Reply | Permalink
More like the "Crapture".
October 3, 2008 12:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
Ugh!! Limbaugh's endorsing Obama is about the only thing that would make me want to double check and reconsider my support for the Dem. ticket. However .... this may be a foreshadowing of the conservatives who never liked him in the first place 'turning on' McCain and blaming him from now until election and forever more thereafter. The fact that he is the ONLY Rep. who could have provided a challenge to Obama (based on his appeal to Independents and moderate Dems.) will totally escape their doctrinaire minds. I expect the "oh, if ony we could reverse the ticket and put Wonder Woman on top" wailing to begin any minute.
October 3, 2008 12:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
Won't happen, we put experience on the top...novelty at #2...y'all might want to re-check you line up though.
October 3, 2008 12:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
We have the cat in a bag, now we need to smack it on the ground a few times.
October 3, 2008 11:07 AM | Reply | Permalink
Ugh. Don't like that image.
October 3, 2008 11:11 AM | Reply | Permalink
Same. If only because I overdosed on colloquialisms already from watching Palin last night.
October 3, 2008 11:23 AM | Reply | Permalink
You know, much has been made of the propensity that her accent (particularly her tendency to drop the final -g off of -ing word) has to drive folks on this board fingernails-on-the-chalkboard crazy, but I have to say that her speech patterns and accent do not bother me much. If I hear her call John McCain "the Maverick" one more time, however, I will not be responsible for my actions. It is not her accent, is it simply the way that she keeps repeating it like a Latin incantation, all the while betraying her obvious ignorance of what the word actually means.
October 3, 2008 11:28 AM | Reply | Permalink
Amen. To dull the pain, I had to start a drinking game, every time she said "Maverick!" I took a shot...
October 3, 2008 11:33 AM | Reply | Permalink
A Latin incantation. Very good. VAMP does have connotations of witchcraft actually.
I'm done with her. Detox. I rec it!
October 3, 2008 11:35 AM | Reply | Permalink
Me either!
October 3, 2008 11:28 AM | Reply | Permalink
Mccain did something very stupid yesterday,even this GOP senator said whut idiot in mccain camp told him to concede in michigan know they r fightin for michigan,then he was campaignin in Iowa the state that actually put Barack on the map not to mention the GOP mayor of Iowa endorses Barack,steve schmidt is a straight up dumb ass.
October 3, 2008 11:09 AM | Reply | Permalink
So much for the notion that Palin has stopped the bleeding. At most she was a band-aid when the campaign desperately needs a transfusion.
October 3, 2008 11:09 AM | Reply | Permalink
You can put a bandaid on a pig, but it's still a pig.
October 3, 2008 11:12 AM | Reply | Permalink
she stopped it then started a whole new bleading the kind that comes from every where
October 3, 2008 9:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
Eat your heart out, Charles Krauthammer.
Well, no, on second thought, don't eat your heart out, because I need it still to be there when I run an olive-wood stake through it to make sure that you do not rise from the dead, you hell-bred blood-sucker.
I am not, per se, proud of myself for feeling this way, but I have to say that one of the more prominent satisfactions of seeing Barack Obama become president will be simply to enjoy the wailing and gnashing of teeth that will go up from the Krauthammers and Kristols and Limbaughs (and Matthew Weavers and BemBillCs and Marginal Players) of this nation. That will not be quite as fine a satisfaction as the return of sanity and competence to government, but the two satisfactions will be close.
October 3, 2008 11:14 AM | Reply | Permalink
Hear, hear.
Well said, Greg-Bagpiper-MO Voter...
October 3, 2008 11:28 AM | Reply | Permalink
Well, dear CT voter, you what they say; great minds think alike.
October 3, 2008 11:40 AM | Reply | Permalink
Repubs. They bring out the worst in us. I extend a plenary indulgence.
October 3, 2008 11:36 AM | Reply | Permalink
Actually, I don't think Matthews will be gnashing his teeth on an Obama win. I suspect in the voting booth, he's going that way.
Matthews just likes to poke whoever he has on and confront them, no matter their affiliation. Normally, I would find this admirable from a journalist, actually. His main problem is that he's confrontational for the sake of the fight, not the substance. Therefore, he will go at it whether it makes sense or not, or whether it is based in reality or just talking points -- as long as he can be argumentative.
October 3, 2008 2:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
Oops. Notice now you said Matthew Weaver not Matthews.
October 3, 2008 2:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yo Charlie! Care for a bowl of sour grapes?
October 3, 2008 11:14 AM | Reply | Permalink
Republicans are bad for rightwinger neocon business.
Put a democrat back in there so they can feel good about bitching again
October 3, 2008 11:15 AM | Reply | Permalink
This is exactly the point I made to my husband that night! I'm always searching for motives when it comes to politics.
October 3, 2008 11:15 AM | Reply | Permalink
Actually, without the Presidency, the Republicans know they're nothing. They're the party of the executive. They've only recently been able to compete for domination of Congress, and they know they can never hope to hold onto it.Add to that, the benefits of having the full Executive Branch at their disposal, with the tens of thousands of patronage jobs that entails, is too good no matter the short-term problems. Add to that, losing the office 2008-2012 cedes the incumbency momentum to the Dems. So on the whole, they'd never concede a Presidential race.
October 3, 2008 11:17 AM | Reply | Permalink
THIS IS EXCELLENT NEWS!!! FOR MCCAIN!!!!
October 3, 2008 11:23 AM | Reply | Permalink
Yes, yes, it is! LOL!
October 3, 2008 11:29 AM | Reply | Permalink
Oh goody!
October 3, 2008 11:31 AM | Reply | Permalink
note the enhanced exclamation point allotment in keeping with the excellence magnitude scale.
October 3, 2008 2:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thank you for that extra bit of help, dear idiotic!
October 4, 2008 9:53 AM | Reply | Permalink
As loyal as conservatives were to Bush/Cheney, they all jumped that sinking ship en masse at the convention. Seeing that the election is lost, and without any loyalties to McCain whatsoever, conservatives will surely find a hint of joy in watching McCain drown.
October 3, 2008 11:28 AM | Reply | Permalink
And once they're done, they'll have the perfect empty suit to turn to--Sarah Palin.
As I was watching last night with the hubby, it dawned on me that she wasn't even trying to reach independents--they know she's as dumb as a bag of rocks--she was talking to wingnuts, and ONLY wingnuts.
IOW, she's trying out for 2012. As frontrunner. And she hopes that the public has short memories.
Now if she can luck out and win this thing now, then all the better. But if not...
October 3, 2008 12:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
McCain "tapping" her is a career killer for Palin. She will not get re-elected Gov. of Alaska (she only won because she was not Frank Murkowsi, let's be honest) and will be gone form the poltical scene and remember only for being a joke (ala Quayle).
October 3, 2008 12:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm waiting for the David Broder article that tumbles for Obama.
October 3, 2008 11:28 AM | Reply | Permalink
I'm waiting for David Brooks. I know that it'll never happen, but I'm waiting. I can't stand that guy.
October 3, 2008 11:31 AM | Reply | Permalink
Here's the Karma on David Brooks (whom I also cannot stand): Apparently his whole family (wife, kids) and just about his entire synagogue are for Obama.
Karma. You gotta love it!
October 3, 2008 11:39 AM | Reply | Permalink
Maybe this should be the "Krauthammer" thread? He also said this:
"McCain is losing and we all know it. I don't like Obama and I don't like his friends. But he has the intellect and temperament to be President. And he probably will be."
Watch the hooks there seems to be an awful lot of bait in the water???
October 3, 2008 11:29 AM | Reply | Permalink
He asks about BHO:
do you really know who he is and what he believes?
I retort what about McSame. Here is the scoop.
http://www.rollingstone.com/news/coverstory/make_believe_maverick_the_real_john_mccain
I prefer BHO every waking and sleeping moment.
October 3, 2008 11:30 AM | Reply | Permalink
Careful! Krauthammer has a remarkably consistent track record of being wrong about almost everything.
October 3, 2008 11:33 AM | Reply | Permalink
If true, then that's actually good news. It just means that statistically he's way overdue to get something right.
October 3, 2008 11:39 AM | Reply | Permalink
Hah! Point well taken. Still and all, even a stopped clock is right twice a day.
October 3, 2008 11:42 AM | Reply | Permalink
Yeah. He got his second to last line right.
Intelligence and Temperament - enough to make Obama an outstanding president!
October 3, 2008 11:50 AM | Reply | Permalink
First-class intellect and a first-class temperament is all you need to beat John McCain? Charlie Kraphammer's attempts to begrudgingly give credit to Obama is actually a greater indictment on the shortcomings of the new Republican standard bearer. John McCain cannot formulate a high-minded thought in a level-headed way, is what he is really saying.
This could make a great testimony for Obama, if only Kraphammer didn't have such "questionable convictions, deeply troubling associations" himself!
October 3, 2008 11:40 AM | Reply | Permalink
" ...deeply troubling associations (Jeremiah Wright, William Ayers, Tony Rezko)"
There is nothing wrong with Jeremiah Wright as a person, or anything he said. I am an admirer of Rev. Wright and did not like BO throwing him under the bus for political gain. However there is a lot at stake, so I look the other way for now.
Shameful to permanently disgrace someone of such great service to his fellow man.
October 3, 2008 11:42 AM | Reply | Permalink
I'm with you - but it's Krauthammer.
He can't be totally on our side without doing great damage to his own philosophy.
I hate his guts and this doesn't change that - but I hand him props for saying what everyone knows.
October 3, 2008 11:53 AM | Reply | Permalink
I wonder how much rat-wing hate mail and death threats Krauthammer is going to get.
October 3, 2008 11:46 AM | Reply | Permalink
I have to say it: That man is so weird-looking!
October 3, 2008 11:48 AM | Reply | Permalink
I know what you mean. Don't you just love a guy who can look you square in the eye--and show you an up-nostril view--all at the same time?
October 3, 2008 11:52 AM | Reply | Permalink
His face reflects the ultimate bitterness against life IMO.
October 3, 2008 11:56 AM | Reply | Permalink
Yes, indeed. Krauthammer is the embodiment of bitterness and intellectual dishonesty. It almost makes me wonder what/who made him so bitter? He certainly never adds anything to his causes.
On a completely different angle, it will be fun to see the Faux News right-wing intellectually bankrupt line-up from Brett Hume on down the line collectively barfing on Election Night when they have to announce Obama has won. Well, if I had the stomach to watch Faux News of course. :-)
October 3, 2008 12:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
"do you really know who he is and what he believes" is code for "I can't vote for a black"
October 3, 2008 11:49 AM | Reply | Permalink
Agreed. It's a euphemism, but you could also apply it to Palin.
October 3, 2008 12:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
It's code for he may well be a radical black liberation theologist, muslim, terrorist sympathizing, America hating, Russian hockey team loving commie. It's an ideological slight, not a racial one.
Krauthammer would vote for any number of right wing zealots who happen to be black. He is a douchebag of the highest order, but he is not part of the bigot wing of the party.
October 3, 2008 12:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
I know the polls are good - but Obama underperforms the polls.
Elections are won by votes and we need to get our votes out and add a margin large enough to overconme the expected machine problems in large urban areas and poor staffing in ethnic urban areas.
Be ready for long lines and vote challenges.
October 3, 2008 11:53 AM | Reply | Permalink
I hope y'all realize that it's going to be concern troll alley around here until the election.
We'll be hammered by concern trolls - that's my prediction and I'm sticking to it.
October 3, 2008 11:57 AM | Reply | Permalink
Can't disagree with you Tena. You've had some pretty clear insight up to this point -- terse and clear. Belated Happy Birthday, BTW.
October 3, 2008 12:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
That is the most prescient prediction of the season.
I'll one up you and predict that 80%-90% of reader posts will be concern-troll/anti-concern troll demands that the other side admit their folly.
October 3, 2008 1:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
Awwww.
Po Widdle Obamanites..Is some bad man going to say bad things about your faith based, psycho babbled Wall Street owned candidate.
Did somebody not wearing an Obama button type in a contrary viewpoint?
Must be a Republican in sheep's clothing if they don't believe the exact same crap you do.
What a load you are.
October 3, 2008 6:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
This cracked me up:
Oh, really? And he said this in the same breath he was talking about Reagan in 1980?
October 3, 2008 11:57 AM | Reply | Permalink
Exactly! He really is the MD2020 drinker, who wants to convince everyone he knows what the best wines are.
October 3, 2008 12:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
The fact is no one knows Rezko or Ayers so no one cares. McCain's association with Bush/Cheney is much more toxic.
I don't like the guy but he's right, GoBama: http://tinyurl.com/6xr3b7
October 3, 2008 12:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
We may see a slew of right-wing pundits trying to shore up cred in the coming weeks -- David Brooks was early to dive for cover (though he tried to make peace with his base today with a silly bit of backtracking based on the lack of a Palin implosion last night).
October 3, 2008 12:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
The Republican rats are fleeing the sinking Republican ship of fools. While some religious right Republicans will hang on and go down with the ship, the Bush/Cheney/Romney/Reagan Republicans who only begrudingly tolerated McCain's pluarity default candidacy will jump overboard as soon as they perceive his chances of winning to be hopeless. The McCain campaign was stupid to announce he was suspending his campaign operations in Michigan because that signaled the beginning of the end of his believable chances of getting elected and was in itself a self-fulfilling phrophecy of failure. In effect, by announcing he was pulling out of Michigan, McCain pushed the first stone down the hill that has started the landslide that ultimately buries him.
October 3, 2008 12:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
I hate Charles Krauthammer more than any other pundit. If I saw him in the street, I might well go after him.
So honestly, I don't care what he says even if it's something I should enjoy hearing.
He's just a tiny slimy cowardly dog of a man.
October 3, 2008 12:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
Krauthammer is often repugnant, but the public offering of respect to an ideological adversary is a sign of intellectual seriousness and honor.
I have come to expect the worst from him, but it's nice surprise.
October 3, 2008 12:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
Maverick -- A cow that has lost its way? Oops...barnyard reference, sorry.
October 3, 2008 12:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
No not that one... the shitty car that Ford made back in the early 70s one.
;-)
October 3, 2008 12:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think Charles Krauthammer like William Kristol did in his column is sending a message to the right. It is not the message that most think it is.
October 3, 2008 12:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
What message is it then?
October 3, 2008 2:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
Gawd, among the right-wing MSM tools, Krauthammer is really among the most loathsome... a pitiful excuse for anybody who claims to think about stuff.
October 3, 2008 12:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
I doubt if Krauthammer is dumb enough to voluntarily play the decoy for the Republicans and claim an Obama victory to throw the Dems off-guard. No, it is totally egotistical. He wants to be the first of the pundits to have predicted an Obama win. That is all that's going on here. In other words, in this case ego trumps ideology.
October 3, 2008 12:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
Maybe Fox News has given him notice or stopped calling, or he's got a boat payment coming up, and he wants some of that tasty Brooks-flavored perceived moderate TV lucre. Either way, I agree it's all about Chuckie.
October 3, 2008 5:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm sure the death threats/wish-you-were-never-borns to Krauthammer (see Katherine Parker's Wash Post article about hers)from the right wing nutcases have already begun.
October 3, 2008 12:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
I am sure Obama loves the fact that bat boy thinks he's smart.
October 3, 2008 1:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
Gosh. Maybe the seas are going to part. Maybe a thousand angels are going to sing.
October 3, 2008 1:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
Suntzu (above) is right. (Man, I wish these posts were numbered for easy referencing. Tech guys, you have your orders!) This is all about calling the race. Kraut is no Kristol.
October 3, 2008 2:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
McCain is the GOP sacrificial lamb. They have never cared for him, so offer him up in the worst GOP year ever and use him to create a new star (Palin, ugh). Let Dems deal with this unholy mess and let Bush recede into memory. Play this cycle dark and aggressive to see if they can pull a rabbit out, but if not its all about 2012.
October 3, 2008 3:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
My reaction to this seems to be the opposite of most people. Given that Krauthammer is known for championing a foreign policy ideology that is, in almost every way, marked by incompetence, paranoia, and a perverse dedication to mistreating those who work with you as well as an equally perverse averse to negotiation, seeing him talk up Obama makes we worry for his chances.
How often is Krauthammer actually right about anything?
October 3, 2008 3:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
In answer to your question, Chuckie is never right, ever.
Which is why I'd just as soon he not concede anything or endorse Obama, however tepidly. The Krauthammer curse is powerful, and could wreck surer things than an Obama victory.
October 3, 2008 5:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
You know McCain is in trouble, when Charles Krauthammer likens him to a petulant ping pong ball and says that Obama has the character and temperament to lead.
October 3, 2008 3:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
MUST SEE TV..... a MUST Read... pass it on... anyone still on the fence!!
I forwarded this article to all of my family/friends...especially those on the fence.
http://www.rollingstone.com/news/coverstory/make_believe_maverick_the_real_john_mccain
October 3, 2008 6:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
GOOD READ!
We will NOT take the LOW EXPECTATION Trap being peddled by egg head neo-cons!
October 3, 2008 6:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
Krauthammer likes him because Obama finally proved himself to the right and Wall Street.
He's a bonafide corporate whore.
Shorter Krauthammer: Come on in, Barrack. You're one of us.
October 3, 2008 6:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
If anyone in their right mind believes these Repukes are goin' down this easy I got a beautiful bridge in Alaska to sell ya'.
We are witnessing the calm before the shitstorm that is being unleashed as we speak. The ads, the caging, the cries of voter fraud (while they attempt to steal it from under our noses again), My Sister in law got an e-mail from her Mother yesterday dispersed through her Mother's Church that called for an all out war on Obama & basically called him everything from a baby murderer, to a child molester, to the anti-Christ. These People are losing their minds & see this as some sort of religious warfare.
It's time to man the ships...
October 3, 2008 7:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
This farce will soon be over....
October 3, 2008 11:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
It almost makes me wonder what/who made him so bitter?
Wasn't it the guy who forgot to fill the pool before Krauthammer dove in for a swim?
October 4, 2008 1:29 AM | Reply | Permalink
Signed and sold to Obama months ago. Soon to be delivered. Bread and Circuses. Obama will be president unless the voting machines are hacked again. Even FAUX has sporadically given him positive news coverage throughout the campaign. Republicrats are just going through the motions. They know the fix is in, too, but they still have to maintain the pretense and finish the "game".
October 4, 2008 11:11 AM | Reply | Permalink
Shouldn't a "team of mavericks" be called a herd?
And therefore no longer mavericks?
October 4, 2008 11:47 AM | Reply | Permalink
Does anyone anywhere actually talk like Sarah Palin? "Say it isn't so Joe" and "You Betcha" Wink, wink and scrunch up one corner of your mouth. She looks and sounds like a joke, a parody.
October 4, 2008 1:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hello people,what Krathammer said about Obamas intellect and temperament is right on;i believe that McCain lack those qualities,and Palin please don't get me started with her.But,i disagree that Obama has questionable experienced ad friendship.
October 6, 2008 2:00 PM | Reply | Permalink