Heh. A while ago I argued that the Obama concept — as it was being bottled and sold at the time — was intriguing, but that it was not ready for market.
Now Glenn Reynolds links to Steve Calabrisi, who demonstrates how, by the magic of the living, breathing, metastasizing Constitution, he’s not even constitutional!
I hate getting poked by penumbras, don’t you?
Cross-posted on Likelihood of Success, which Dean’s World commands you to add to your blogroll.
{ 18 comments }
yeah, because jfk, clinton, and teddy roosevelt were horrible presidents who ruined the country and we certainly wouldn’t want another one of THOSE in the white house.
yeah, because jfk, clinton, and teddy roosevelt were horrible presidents who ruined the country and we certainly wouldn’t want another one of THOSE in the white house.
Strawman. The article didn’t say that they were horrible presidents, or even that they were not good presidents. The point made was that they "committed serious rookie blunders." I.E. on the job training that a more experienced person would be more likely avoid.
Sandi,
the article’s clear implication was that those potential rookie mistakes were enough to disqualify obama from office, or at the very least to push one towards the more experienced candidate. it completely undermines the entire thesis of the argument that the three presidents younger than obama have all been among the most popular and successful presidents, blunders or not.
I wouldn’t worry too much, Ron.
After all Caroline Kennedy (dare anyone say: Schlossberg) gets to be one of the people picking Obama’s vice-president.
Somehow the humor has eluded some of you.
Dean, you bring up a good point. Â
 Obama and his supporters are humorless to the extreme.
 Bill Clinton had a decent sense of humor, and even Hillary could cackle. Â
 But jeez, what’s up with the Obamatrons?
 It’s ironic that the crotchety old curmudgeon McCain kicks ass when it comes to the funny.
dean,
where is the humor, exactly? i guess i sort of get calabrisi’s initial "gotcha," though i wouldn’t go so far as to call it humorous. but far from writing a jokey article, he wrote a Very Serious Op-Ed.
jaymaster,
unfortunately i doubt either obama or mccain will be splitting too many sides in the upcoming months. talk about bottled and sold.
Zach: While sardonic and caustic in parts, the piece is almost entirely tongue-in-cheek. Perhaps you are Comedy Impaired? :-)
Dean,
to be clear, we’re both talking about the linked calabrisi article, correct? there’s nothing tongue-in-cheek about it. it seems to me to be a very straightforward "obama isn’t ready" piece.
Yes, the Calabrisi article.
I laughed out loud. It appears that Ron and Jay did too.
hm. although your enjoyment of family guy might indicate that you just have a low bar for humor? ;)
I didn’t laugh out loud. Just chuckled a bit.  It seemed to me that it was a glib response to those who claim McCain is too old to be President.Â
Kind of a wordier version of Reagan’s “I refuse to exploit my opponent’s youth and inexperience†thing.
jaymaster,
turning it around like that is an interesting angle, and one i hadn’t considered.
Honestly, how could you take something suggesting that we should re-interpret the Constitution to make Obama ineligible seriously? It’s clearly sardonic, if a little biting.
But if we’re gonna get serious, I might note that I have long felt that JFK was really not a very good President at all, and that has nothing to do with his party or his politics, really. If he hadn’t been martyred there’s a good chance he wouldn’t have been re-elected and would not be viewed in the saintly terms he is now. But that’s not the purpose of this piece.
hahaha, well of course that part was a joke. i’m talking about the rest of the piece, which is standard (though snarky) fare about obama being inexperienced.
Family Guy is not lowbrow. I know because I was in a hotel for five days and got to watch it for the first time. And because I would know, wouldn’t I?
Ron Coleman’s last blog post..Pony baloney
ron,
i never said it was lowbrow, only that it wasn’t funny ;)
to each his own, though.
Also in 1789, the human brain was wired to the point where we also learned and processed information at 1.6 times the rate thus making this a perfectly rational comparison of people from that age to the people of today. He should really stick to the "only 4 years as a senator" diatribe as it is slightly more relevant.
Comments on this entry are closed.