Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity

Obama's Task

What's astonishing about this convention is that we are coming into it with the race a dead heat. This is impossible. Every political wind is blowing the Democrats’ way. But the Democrats managed to nominate the weakest of their major candidates, while the Republicans -- by sheer accident, mind you -- nominated their strongest, indeed, the only one with a chance of winning this year.

This election is a referendum on Obama. If he meets the threshold test of making Americans feel comfortable with the idea of him as president -- the way Reagan did in 1980 -- he wins. But he's been sagging in the polls because of the strange combination of two phenomena -- one out of his control, one within.

Out of his control is the sheer thinness and lightness of his biography. He has an interesting history, but in no way dramatic or heroic. Nor has he done anything of any significance in his 47 years other than write two rather favorable histories of himself. His greatest achievement in life is, of course, winning the Democratic nomination for the presidency. But as a reason to elect him president, that has the same kind of circularity as does his “we are the ones we've been waiting for" refrain.

Obama’s problem is that he has compounded it with a detached imperiousness and unnerving grandiosity so completely disproportionate to his own accomplishments. Grandiosity in a de Gaulle is one thing, though even with him it often reached the point of the ridiculous. But Obama?

The beginning of Obama’s decline in the polls was the Berlin speech. It took a while for the absurdity of that event to sink in, and for the McCain campaign to take perfect advantage of it in parody. Not only did Berlin (as a stand-in for a host of grand Obama gestures) prove a liability in and of itself. But, additionally, it accentuated the basic thinness of Obama’s history and experience.

The point of the Democratic National Convention is to pad the biography and to make it look dramatic and heroic. And, on the other hand, to try to control the Obama acceptance speech, which he scheduled as a mass cult-of-personality event in front of 80,000 screaming fans at Invesco Field. Obama’s task is to make it sober and measured. Success is possible. He can pull it off with a good speech -- rooted, serious, light on the cosmic pretensions -- and good camera angles. At least the cheers will be in English rather than German.

By Charles Krauthammer  | August 25, 2008; 6:24 PM ET
Categories:  Krauthammer  | Tags:  Charles Krauthammer  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: What to Expect From Tonight's Kennedy Catharsis
Next: Clinton Holdouts, Messing Up All the Unity

Comments

He's been running for 1 1/2 years he is not yet elected and here is what he has accomplished:
1. He RADICALLY changed the face of campaign finance, proving that an unlikely candidate can shatter fundraising records without taking a dime from PACs or registered lobbyists, in like he changed the DNC to do exactly the same. NO other politician has been able to do this.

2. In the face of being called "dangerously naive" by his opponent he was able to put the wheels in motion for ending the Iraq war, remember "we will not accept a timeline"? Bush, Maliki AND McCain have ALL adopted OBAMA's timeline plan.
NO OTHER politician has been able to do this.

Remember, he isn't even elected and he has accomplished more than Bush in 8 years.

I know you hate Obama Mr. Krauthhammer but you are just showing your lack of objectivity, you are no critical thinking journalist, just a partisan cynic. Your ilk will go down with the rest of them when they are voted out.

Posted by: JR | August 25, 2008 7:03 PM | Report abuse

Sorry we failed you, Hillary. We should had worked harder - we should had worked smarter. Now we must accept Obama (the modern JFK) as our Commander-In-Chief, tutored by Biden (our new Dick Cheney) ... then again, perhaps not ...

Posted by: Louie | August 25, 2008 7:03 PM | Report abuse

I hope nobody comments here because this loser has championed every failed policy and not once admitted to being wrong or apologized.
He's an elitist with an agenda, and it doesn't include you other than needing you for tax money.

Posted by: K Ackermann | August 25, 2008 7:04 PM | Report abuse

Mr. Krauthhammer
You sad little man, sniveling frightened and very, very small.

Posted by: Anonymous | August 25, 2008 7:08 PM | Report abuse

Chuck, I keep wondering that also, but I am also wondering how many people in the US have only mobile phones, you know a land line and mobile are something a lot of people can't afford to possess at the same time. The pollsters are calling people that are likely voters, probably the old and infirmed. Times have changed and polling is an art form that could be lost if changes are not made to jump into the 21st century.

Posted by: hmmmmmer | August 25, 2008 7:35 PM | Report abuse

...but he's got a point:

Please someone, anyone, reprint or give a link to a SINGLE article Obama wrote as a law "professor" at U of C, or as president of the Harvard Law Review. I haven't seen one and I'd be interested.

What I have seen is his wife's thesis from Princeton which, once you get past the glaring grammatical errors, is, to put it gently, crap.

Mr. and Mrs. Obama are not intellectual heavy weights, and that's ok. There have only been a handful of Presidents that were: Adams, Jefferson, Madison, Lincoln, and not many more. The problem is not Obama's lack of intellectual gravitas, the problem is his perceived possession of it.

Posted by: TSR | August 25, 2008 7:45 PM | Report abuse

I agree with Mr. Krauthammer's sense of astonishment at the rankings, but I totally disagree with his conclusion. The election is NOT a referendum on Obama. Trying to make it such a referendum is a Republican strategic goal, nothing more, and certainly shouldn't be allowed to pass as considered independent thought. If, as Paul Krugman wrote this morning, the election becomes one of a choice between party visions, Obama wins hands down

Posted by: mmfleming | August 25, 2008 7:56 PM | Report abuse

OK. Krauthammer doesn't like Obama. We know that. However, what he says about Obama is DEAD ON.

If you don't think he is dead on, then disagree with something he said. But, please, don't just call him names. It makes YOU look bad.

Theory: Maybe these are really young kids who just don't know how to constuct an argument?

Depressing Thought: There must be a lot of leftist kids!

Posted by: Scott3 | August 25, 2008 8:05 PM | Report abuse

Krauthammer has NAILED IT AGAIN!!!

Posted by: THE BARON | August 25, 2008 8:09 PM | Report abuse

thanks Charles Krauthammer for providing yet another veiwpoint that counter's Eugene Robinson's endless nonsense.
I agree with you. Obama is being propped up by the democratic establishment. He does not have the experience to lead this country in these tough times. I think that the reason that the senior dems are supporting him, is because they believe they can manipulate him for their own interests. There is no way (IMO) that Barack Obama can lead in the way we expect leader's of state to lead. Just my $0.02. Maybe next year for Barack. not this year.

Posted by: dave | August 25, 2008 8:12 PM | Report abuse

I don't know how The American People can Elect Obama when he did not win enough Electorial votes to when. What does He truly stand for Affirmative Action 40 years late rand 40 trillion dollars just say NO HUESIEN OBAMA!!!!!!!

Posted by: Ann Chamberlain | August 25, 2008 8:38 PM | Report abuse

Mr. Krauthammer is correct in the sense that the only way that McCain can win is to continually raise enough doubts about Obama, and keep the focus off of how the Republicans have run the county, most especially the economy, in the ditch with McCain as one of the drivers. .What he doesn't address is that an inexperienced Obama is a world better than the old tired policies that McCain represents.

Keep up the smoke Charles. It's your best shot.

Posted by: Flyintheointment | August 25, 2008 8:50 PM | Report abuse

Good analysis of what the Dems will try to do. In a football stadium, because it's so big, he'll need an extra dose of smoke and mirrors to make his thin resume seem thicker. And thatnks Obama for pointing out all of your weaknesses by picking Biden, inspite of the fact that he is opposite of you on many major issues (war, NAFTA, FISA) but with you on abortion and more taxes. Plagarism Joe, what a gift to the Republicans.

Posted by: Rick | August 25, 2008 8:51 PM | Report abuse

If your rules are truly as stated above, then why did you allow "anonymous" to post such a hateful comment. Is it that those who disagree with conservatives are not required to follow the rules. Sad and classless.

Posted by: J Gibson | August 25, 2008 9:05 PM | Report abuse

So Dr. Krauthammer lists the criteria for president as "dramatic or heroic". I suggest we might look for "intelligent and thoughtful". I point out that Mr. Bush was neither "dramatic nor heroic" but Bush is also not intelligent and thoughtful.

Posted by: Larry Oswald | August 25, 2008 9:05 PM | Report abuse

He's been running for 1 1/2 years he is not yet elected and here is what he has accomplished:
1. He RADICALLY changed the face of campaign finance, proving that an unlikely candidate can shatter fundraising records without taking a dime from PACs or registered lobbyists, in like he changed the DNC to do exactly the same. NO other politician has been able to do this.

2. In the face of being called "dangerously naive" by his opponent he was able to put the wheels in motion for ending the Iraq war, remember "we will not accept a timeline"? Bush, Maliki AND McCain have ALL adopted OBAMA's timeline plan.
NO OTHER politician has been able to do this.

Remember, he isn't even elected and he has accomplished more than Bush in 8 years.

Posted by: JR | August 25, 2008 7:03 PM

Thanks for the joke JR! Here is mine: Obama's statements on the South Ossetian War caused the Russians to pull out of Georgia!?! It's fun to make things up and kid around!

Sen. Obama has radically flip-flopped on campaign finance reform by going against everything he ever voted/said about it!

And Iraq, come on. Have you been watching the news the last six months? Casualty rates in Iraq are now lower than those in Afghanistan. We are making plans to leave because we simply aren't needed anymore. Not because the great Senator Obama suggested it. Get real.

Thank you for the article Mr. Krauthammer, at least we know there is one journalist out there that will dish out the truth.

Posted by: DR | August 25, 2008 9:28 PM | Report abuse

Do we really need another Jimmy Carter, especially with emerging China and reemerging Russia. Obama has NO experience and his BS regarding one nation and family. 40,000,000 babies murdered and counting- He even voted for infanticide . Michelle hates America calling us a 'mean country' and after Barry was running said 'this is the first time in my adult life I am proud to be an American'.
Oh Golly- they are just perfect as America's first couple

Posted by: charles higgins | August 25, 2008 9:29 PM | Report abuse

If hUSSEIN obama wins then it will become dark and cloudy, with a chance of driveby. Everything that we know as decent, will be a thing of the past.

Posted by: TWOTIMETUNA | August 25, 2008 9:29 PM | Report abuse

You Americans are so naive and innocent. You are the target for all the dark regimes of the world from Iran to Russia to China, yet you pick a well-educated neophyte with no real-world experience, a commander-in-chief who never commanded anything, let alone served in the military. If Obama is elected, only God can help you! Putin will play him like a fiddle, test him to the edge of conflict, and teach him about what the real world is like. Likewise the Iranians, Chinese, Chavez, bin-Laden, Hezbollah, the Syrians. Obama's head will spin so fast he'll wish he was back sitting in Reverend Wright's church, making believe he is not hearing what he is hearing. And please, economically he is nothing more than a European socialist, a Zapatero or Chirac...high taxes, income distribution, stiffling controls and thus a sinking economy. Racially, who cares? A Colin Powell, why not? But a novice following the incompetent Bush? How much more can your country endure?

Posted by: Rocco | August 25, 2008 9:29 PM | Report abuse

Hail to King George and Prince John.....these imperialists have spoken English for the past 8 years......we have 4000 dead soldiers to prove it.....

Posted by: sjosephs | August 25, 2008 9:45 PM | Report abuse

Krauthammer:

"What's astonishing about this convention is that we are coming into it with the race a dead heat. This is impossible."

I agree It is astonishing. It's sad, really. But it's not because the democrats chose a weak candidate. On the contrary, Obama is a natural. He's great. The problem is that the GOP treat their party like a sports team. They root for them even when they really suck. The GOP are stubborn, partisan, and vindictive. They'd rather trash the nation and the constitution than lose to the other team.

It's insane. It makes no sense. But that's what it boils down to. It's that simple. Republicans are that simple. That petty.

Krauthammer is a bird or the GOP feather. In the quote above, he acknowledges that the GOP has screwed everything up. He almost seems to regret that the race is as close as it is. He sounds as if he believes the only just outcome would be for a Democratic landslide. All in the same breath that he shamelessly shills for the GOP. Does anyone else find this bizarre??

Posted by: Kurt Hunt | August 25, 2008 9:54 PM | Report abuse

you sound SO jealous! funny column, little man. what you forget is half the enthusiasm is due to the weariness of the people towards any (R), much less Mad Mac. your party has failed us, you partisan hack.

Posted by: preAmerikkkan | August 25, 2008 9:55 PM | Report abuse

Dang! Charlie's nailed it again. I hate that.

Posted by: What! | August 25, 2008 9:59 PM | Report abuse

I hope McCain can tell us a tangible reason to vote for him. His criticism of Obama is not enough for me to vote for him. John, tell us what you will do if elected. I don’t care about your opinion of Obama, or what he did with or without Hillary. Tell me why I should vote for you, because of what you will do.

Posted by: Anonymous | August 25, 2008 10:00 PM | Report abuse

JR, you said "He RADICALLY changed the face of campaign finance, proving that an unlikely candidate can shatter fundraising records without taking a dime from PACs or registered lobbyists, in like he changed the DNC to do exactly the same. NO other politician has been able to do this."

They call Republicans the big money party, and you brag about how much money your hero has raised. This after he broke his public finance pledge.

He has bi-racial roots. His father abandoned his mother and him, when he was 2 years old. He was raised by his mother and her family. He attended a private school in Hawaii. He attended Harvard. With that background, he then fell in with the likes of Reverend Wright, who blames his mother's race for all of the evil in the world. The conflicts in Obama's history are there.

Posted by: Witless | August 25, 2008 10:22 PM | Report abuse

Double up on your Xanax for this week Charlie, and don't worry, your hate spewing pals will be along soon to validate your deep seated fear-and-loathing. In fact, by the time they're done... you yourself will be back to the same grandiose old guy we all know and love... to vilify :).

Posted by: Paulie200 | August 25, 2008 10:27 PM | Report abuse

Anonymous 10:00 pm.
John McCain will appoint US Supreme Court justices who will adhere to their proper Constitutional role as jurists, rather than legislators.

Posted by: Russ | August 25, 2008 10:31 PM | Report abuse

I just feel so sorry for Charlie. I know he's listening to the convention, and it's 100% positive, uplifting, visionary... life affirming. What's a grinch given to militarism and authoritarianism bordering on fascism to do?

With the possible exception of Nancy Pelosi...(merely so so) every speech has knocked one over the fence (i.e. Jesse Jackson Jr. ... "...within view of the mountain top." WOW!)

Jim Leach calmly, cooly, defining what real post partisanship is all about, and right now Michelle Obama talking about what real patriotism, and not lapel pin patriotism, is all about. Wow.

Of course Charles won't see it that way. Charles hates, Charles loathes, Charles ridicules. Expect fear, and more fear... lots more fear, at the Republican convention... that's what they ran on in 2004. Krauthammer, McCain and the whole Neocon cabal, in some bizarre combination of quotes from Churchill and Roosevelt...... have nothing to offer, but fear itself.

Posted by: Paulie200 | August 25, 2008 10:56 PM | Report abuse

Krauthammer's use of imagery is so obvious, and so off. Obama and his 'mass cult-of-personality'; he writes as if Obama is the new Mussolini and his supporters crazed fascists. Surely his supporters are excited - but extreme? You must be joking. They want some overdue change, hardly radical revolution. A revolution in the health insurance market, maybe, but certainly not for the American people. Unfortunately for Krauthammer, not every piece of breaking news has its historical equivalent in some moment of WWI Europe. In fact, if you think about it, few pieces of breaking news genuinely have such an equivalent. Why does Krauthammer so consistently abuse history to make such erroneous gloom-or-doom predictions?

The idea that Obama is even with McCain in the polls because of his 'grandiosity' is true only in the Krauthammer-Brooks-Kristol fantasy world; first, because the image of this 'grandiosity' is greatly played upon, and therefore inflated, by Republican opinion-makers themselves; second, the image of voters as actually concerned with this 'grandiosity' is a distortion. Never has there been, or will there be, a poll showing that the biggest question in voters' minds is the 'grandiosity' of a presidential candidate. It's sorta in the job description, and something that has to be exhibited before one gets the job.

'Grandiosity' is a euphemism for 'elitism'; the latter attack label is going in the toilet because it so clearly backfires, but the former expresses the same thing. It is meant to evoke the sense of entitlement Obama supposedly exudes when he speaks on a world stage - entitlement only Great Leaders of History, who always stand above society because they are 'heroic', can rightfully exhibit. But isn't it refreshing that Obama, who has not been held a prisoner of war so therefore has not accomplished anything 'courageous', stands there in Germany and makes a speech anyway, and that people come in droves to listen nonetheless? Isn't it so clear that contention that one must be 'heroic' to speak in public the greatest elitism of all?


Posted by: danny1094 | August 25, 2008 11:12 PM | Report abuse

Great blog. Same Krauthammer, disagree or agree with the points. Less literary. Short, to the point. Krauthammer does a good blog style.

Posted by: AsperGirl | August 25, 2008 11:14 PM | Report abuse

With his VP pick, Obama's switched from a "change" and "new politics" ticket to an "old politics white senior DC pol who knows what he's teaching the young president" ticket. Obama also compromised his "new politics means I won't take cynical positions" earlier this Summer with a series of flip flops, including breaking his federal election funding pledge and other reversals that surprised the left winger progressives. Obama's deeply negative dive into spouse attacks cements the fall of Obama from the pedestal of his "new politics" rhetoric this Spring.

Thus his perfect-worlder rhetoric has met reality, about 3 months after the end of primary season.

It's not just the lack of substance, it's the lack of anything at all that is meaningful.

Posted by: AsperGirl | August 25, 2008 11:18 PM | Report abuse

As usual the offensive name-calling is almost entirely, if not exclusively, being done by liberals.

Why the need to call the author
a "sad little man, sniveling frightened and very, very small."
"funny column, little man. ... your party has failed us, you partisan hack." (you wonder if this person is aware at how many liberal columnists at the NY Times and WAPO ALWAYS side with the Dems)


Posted by: why the ad-hominem attacks? | August 25, 2008 11:19 PM | Report abuse

Goodness Chucky, you don't like Obama, we know. Your arguments are a regurgitation of Republican talking points so, we don't really know what you think, you're just trying to help one party "frame the debate". Make it about Obama.
Let's not talk about the Republican record, that would result in a political massacre for the Republicans come November.

Posted by: dijetlo | August 25, 2008 11:19 PM | Report abuse

"What's astonishing about this convention is that we are coming into it with the race a dead heat." ~ Krauthammer

"Dan Balz and Jon Cohen write in The Washington Post with the results of the latest Washington Post-ABC News Poll, in which Obama leads McCain 49 to 43" ~ Dan Froomkin.

Could Chuckie be any more clueless?

Or does he lie reflexively?

Posted by: pali2500 | August 26, 2008 12:04 AM | Report abuse

The Washington Post is one of the world's great newspapers, presumably appealing to an educated, sophisticated audience. Yet the postings we've seen here are amazingly incoherent, loaded with illogic, abusive, and venemous. The spelling and punctuation errors are unbelievable.

It comes from both sides of our ideological divide.

C'mon people, pull up your socks and try to be civil and intelligent. And knock off the ALL CAPS. Makes you sound like a shrill idiot.

Posted by: chuckmcf | August 26, 2008 12:07 AM | Report abuse

If everything I had been crowing from the rooftops for the past 8 years had turned out to be dead wrong, as is the case with Krauthammer, I wouldn't have the nerve to show my face in public.

So it seems a total lack of shame and common decency are requisite qualities for a Republican shill such as Krauthammer.

Posted by: MorganaLaFay | August 26, 2008 12:08 AM | Report abuse

Chuck, you make interesting points. The wild thing is how the right is making a case against Obama, and not making a case for McCain. You said in uor article that Republicans have by mistake selected their strongest candidate for the upcoming election. However you do not state any points to support that claim. It will be interesting when the Republican convention commences with your column only say negative things about Obama, or will you actually mention any of good qualities you see in McCain? If you see any.

Posted by: GC4Life | August 26, 2008 12:18 AM | Report abuse

I would add, in comparison with what will be predecessor, that in his years before becoming president, Senator Obama never was accused of drunken driving, showed up where he said he would, and avoided spending most of his youth coked out or drunk. But why do I suspect that Mr. Krauthammer had no such qualms in 2000, when the "man" to whom I refer was his candidate?

Posted by: Michael Green | August 26, 2008 12:49 AM | Report abuse

Remember Mr. Krauthammer....Polls don't contact 'cell phones'! The youth which will flood the polls use cell phones!

Posted by: Florenzo | August 26, 2008 1:28 AM | Report abuse

Why are you people so hateful? Honestly. When I listen to McCain on his own, without the dirty ads and mind boggling surrogates, I like him. A lot. He makes a lot of sense.

But when you guys go on and on about Obama being a muslim, or his middle name, or refuse to acknowledge the organizational strength shown in beating the Clintons to win the nomination (nobody “managed” to do anything, he and his team won) it turns me off completely.

I echo the "small" comments.

Posted by: yikes | August 26, 2008 1:29 AM | Report abuse

Krauthammer is just another rabid white racist. It is amazing how he can insinuate and peddle the racist lie about Obama that he is unqualified simply because of his thin tenure in the Senate - and that Mr. Krauthammer refuses to look at Mr. McCain's Gaffes, D average in the Naval Academy and lack of policy prescriptions as evidence of lack of qualification.

Instead Krauthammer employs this stereotype of Black Americans as inferior intellectual regardless of how meritted and intelligent such persons may be.

Racists like Krauthammer then allege that only blacks can be racists - and not rednecks like him.

Most racists like Krauthammer would have you ignore the fact that several white men have been arressted for attempting to threaten Senator Obama's life.

Posted by: Citizen | August 26, 2008 1:32 AM | Report abuse

"He's been sagging in the polls because of the strange combination of two phenomena .... out of his control is the sheer thinness and lightness of his biography." Sure, and the polling results from old and uneducated voters have NOTHING at all to do with race, right? Get real. The same tired (R) rhetoric being spouted verbatim from clueless network-news watchers and mentally-challenged pundits. The answers mean nothing if we ask the wrong questions. For example, we ask "Does Obama have the experience necessary to lead?" We should be asking "Can we afford 4 more years of McBush failed policies while our country continues to go down the toilet?"

Posted by: FlyedLice | August 26, 2008 1:33 AM | Report abuse

Democrats courting Republican and Independent Voters!

The Chantay's - Pipeline (Lawrence Welk Show)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j09C8clJaXo

Obama/Biden '08

Posted by: Yeil Raven | August 26, 2008 1:45 AM | Report abuse

My friends, the problem in Washington is that it is being led by idiots. We have idiots in Washington because people like you keep voting them in. You listen to their idiot talk, you watch some idiot on Fox News click off one finger at a time and recite the same idiot talking points while another idiot puts up a feable argument.

We are a nation of idiots. You're all idiots. So therefore I understand your values and I'm the most like you.

Keep idiots in the Whitehouse.

I approved this message.

Posted by: McCain_08 | August 26, 2008 1:50 AM | Report abuse

I'm sure Charles didn't listen to Kennedy tonight. It would be like pouring holy water on Linda Blair in the Exorcist.

These next 4 days are going to be brutal on you, but the sweet salve of hate and deception will be back for you next week when that man of lofty goals and 8 houses, hits the stage.

Posted by: K Ackermann | August 26, 2008 1:54 AM | Report abuse

You have a POW who had one of the highest approval rating of any politicians. Loosing to a black man who has been on the national scene 4 years.
John McCain has every advantage and candidate could have. He horrid primary candidates. He answers POW to every criticism. Why is he loosing?

Posted by: TexDem | August 26, 2008 2:12 AM | Report abuse

I strongly supported Obama through the primaries, going so far as to donate, put up flyers, and canvass for his campaign. His FISA vote followed by his statement that offshore drilling is acceptable are the two reasons why he lost my support and my vote.

Posted by: Joe | August 26, 2008 2:49 AM | Report abuse

Please keep up your short comedic articles.

It certainly sucks having to deal with being a Bush Republican every day so every little bit helps.

Thanks!

Posted by: Glen | August 26, 2008 2:53 AM | Report abuse

"He has an interesting history, but in no way dramatic or heroic".

If clawing your way up from poverty, from a single-parent household, and making it all the way to Harvard Law, and acing Harvard law; and becoming editor of their review; and doing philanthropic work for the poor in Chicago, as opposed to taking a high-paying job immediately after graduation; if all that's not heroic, then I don't know what is.

Is getting shot down in a fighter plane and being held as a POW the only way one can be a hero? Is that even heroic?

Obama is true American hero. He's the epitome of the American dream, and his greatest achievement is in climbing up the social ladder all the way to the Senate, and making valuable policy contributions to boot. His strong character is a very good reason to elect him President, in addition to the many others, such as his values, his voting record, his ability to unite people, to name a few.

In short, he's a true leader. And the reason there's going to be 80,000 people screaming at Invesco is not due to anything as capricious as an affinity for his personality, as you suggest; but simply because people recognize that he's a true leader, who's overcome great odds to be where he is.

The Berlin speech was great. Why do you say it was absurd? America needs to reach out and build partnerships around the world, not remain isolationist and hostile. Obama is as good a world ambassador as you'll get.

Your viewpoint, Krauthammer, is the only thing that's absurd.


Posted by: Raffi Aidiniantz | August 26, 2008 2:58 AM | Report abuse

If McCain, as you say, is the strongest Republican candidate as the nominee, I worry about the other eligible candidates poor Republican had.

McCain would have been strong, had he allowed his 'maverick' nerve to kick in earlier in the Bush administration. Agreeing with a leader 95% of the time is hardly a measure of independent thinking we expect from a leader, supposedly one that is biled as a 'maverick'.

He admits not to know much on economics, which is why he brought in that Texan economist who called us all "whiners," for complaining against how badly has the economy been run in the last several years.

McCain wants to stay in Iraq (he mixes up the sequence regarding the surge and its effects), while the Bush administration is arranging the withdrawal time-table with the Iraqis. He offered no plans for Afghanistan/Pakistan, except some other bluster.

McCain boasts about siding with GWB who, by trying to arrange a withdrawal time-table with Iraq, has ruthlessly gutted the McCain argument.

His attacks on Obama seem naive. Forget the Paris Hilton-Britney Spear commercials as symbols of hollowness, his use of Hillary's comments against Obama shows nothing ORIGINAL, either. Perhaps he forgets how effective wee the Hillary attacks he likes to quote.

Apart from agreement with GWB on Iraq and economy and sharing his bluster, what else does McCain say for himself ? I see little else from a person I admire so much for his unrivaled sacrifice for the country. John, you let me and others down.

Posted by: cantabb | August 26, 2008 3:24 AM | Report abuse

If McCain, as you say, is the strongest Republican candidate as the nominee, I worry about the other eligible candidates poor Republican had.

McCain would have been strong, had he allowed his 'maverick' nerve to kick in earlier in the Bush administration. Agreeing with a leader 95% of the time is hardly a measure of independent thinking we expect from a leader, supposedly one that is biled as a 'maverick'.

He admits not to know much on economics, which is why he brought in that Texan economist who called us all "whiners," for complaining against how badly has the economy been run in the last several years.

McCain wants to stay in Iraq (he mixes up the sequence regarding the surge and its effects), while the Bush administration is arranging the withdrawal time-table with the Iraqis. He offered no plans for Afghanistan/Pakistan, except some other bluster.

McCain boasts about siding with GWB who, by trying to arrange a withdrawal time-table with Iraq, has ruthlessly gutted the McCain argument.

His attacks on Obama seem naive. Forget the Paris Hilton-Britney Spear commercials as symbols of hollowness, his use of Hillary's comments against Obama shows nothing ORIGINAL, either. Perhaps he forgets how effective wee the Hillary attacks he likes to quote.

Apart from agreement with GWB on Iraq and economy and sharing his bluster, what else does McCain say for himself ? I see little else from a person I admire so much for his unrivaled sacrifice for the country. John, you let me and others down.

Posted by: cantabb | August 26, 2008 3:24 AM | Report abuse

I encourage someone with more time than myself to survey these reader comments and those of other blogs as well to determine the percentage of prospective voters who give informed, thought out reasons for their dislike of a candidate. What would also be interesting is to get a number on what percentage of people roll out the canned reasons for not voting for one or the other: "Obama will raise taxes," or "A McCain presidency will amount to four more years of Bush." Lastly, I'd like to know the percentage of people (however miniscule it may be) who demonstrate the capacity to acknowledge the virtues of the candidate they are NOT supporting.

This is an important election. We must be measured and fair in our reasoning and not allow ourselves to be manipulated by skewed facts and sensationalism. Lest you forget, our reelection of George W. Bush in 2004 will forever be a stain on our generation. From this point forward, I would like history to have something good to say about us. Being mindless propaganda receptacles who aggressively play these canned "facts" on an endless loop is not going to help. Turn off the talking heads, be them on the TV or the radio. They aren't there to provide you with useful political insight, but to incite enough people to raise their ratings. And stop saying vile things to one another and about these candidates. It adds nothing and subtracts a great deal. This is too important. The last thing we need is a political party pissing contest when we need to be electing the best President.

Posted by: Patrick Hart | August 26, 2008 3:52 AM | Report abuse

I'll take Scott3's challenge and refute Mr. K line by line. Ready?

"What's astonishing about this convention is that we are coming into it with the race a dead heat. This is impossible."

On the contrary: It's expected. A. He's black. Now while in my naivete I have no doubt that no significant number of Americans truly cares...oh, well. Whoops: Statistically speaking, the figure is 11% across the political spectrum, but who's counting, right? :) Kennedy won by the slimmest margin in presidential history. Perhaps you counter that "Obama is no Kennedy", be that as it may (and I think he compares most favorably with both JFK and RFK), it's a blind fool that can't ("won't" is more appropriate) discern that he's the natural successor to the Kennedy esprit du corps.

"Every political wind is blowing the Democrats’ way. But the Democrats managed to nominate the weakest of their major candidates"

I fail to see how this reflects anything but K's taste for skipping logic in favor of his own out of left field interpretation: Obama won the Democratic vote, trouncing the Clinton apparatus and any stats that suggest that Hillary would have blown McCain out of the water by now are speculative at best, with the extreme probability backing the notion that she'd be running a dead heat as well.


"while the Republicans -- by sheer accident, mind you -- nominated their strongest, indeed, the only one with a chance of winning this year."

Tripe: They nominated a waffler who comes across the airwaves with the same sincerity as Bill Gates asking the Senate Committee: "What's a browser." Hardly an erudite, Mr. K: McCain has committed so many verbal gaffes and organizational blunders that it's amazing the Republicans intend to confirm his nomination at all in place of his wife, Cindy.

"This election is a referendum on Obama."

Has it occurred to you what a weak candidate the Republicans must indeed have put forward to make it so? It's almost as if there's so little to say for John McCain's contribution to the political dialogue that he's been regulated to a "break glass in case of emergency" position. By your own admission.


"If he meets the threshold test of making Americans feel comfortable with the idea of him as president -- the way Reagan did in 1980 -- he wins."

That's all? You mean, he doesn't have to present a compelling vision for the future direction of the country, above and beyond a viable alternative offered by John McCain? Mr. K's assumptions belie his opening paragraph.


"But he's been sagging in the polls because of the strange combination of two phenomena -- one out of his control, one within.

Out of his control is the sheer thinness and lightness of his biography. He has an interesting history, but in no way dramatic or heroic. Nor has he done anything of any significance in his 47 years other than write two rather favorable histories of himself. His greatest achievement in life is, of course, winning the Democratic nomination for the presidency. But as a reason to elect him president, that has the same kind of circularity as does his “we are the ones we've been waiting for" refrain."

Nonsense: He's been lagging in the polls because the Republicans have launched an out and out smear campaign appealing to -let's call a spade a spade, shall we?- the stupidist segment of the American voting public. Dress it up any other way you like: I've seen the demographics. So have you, Mr. K.

"Obama’s problem is that..."

Freeze-frame: Neither you nor any other pundit can claim to *know* what Obama's "problem" is. It is the nature of pundits to generate "problems" for this candidate or that as if a problem existed on their say-so: I have yet to see your credentials, sir, though I have no doubt they'd make for light reading.


"he has compounded it with a detached imperiousness and unnerving grandiosity"

Unnerving to who: You? "Imperiousness"...as judged by who, sir? LOL
YOU? Oh my.

"so completely disproportionate to his own accomplishments."

So, by your argument, he should be...what? Humble? How can one be humble if one is running for leader of the free world? I expect that, in Mr. K's idyllic fantasy world, Mr. O would never have run in the first place, he would have waited his turn, he would have "known his place." Thank God, we don't live in such a world.


"Grandiosity in a de Gaulle is one thing"

What is "a" de Gaulle? What does the writer know about Charles de Gaulle...has he met him? Is he a vetted historian? Give me an outline of his career, sir, without Googling it. No, all he knows is that Charles de Gaulle was a strutting peacock, because he heard from other people who heard from other people that de Gualle was a strutting peacock - the rest is but an abyss of ignorance compounded by a 5pm submission deadline and a lackluster, unsettling and -dare I crib from Mr. K's own line- DISTURBING froth about the mouth.


"though even with him it often reached the point of the ridiculous."

Name one time when it did. What was the speech? Pull me up a videoclip.
You can't.
Because you just heard it from someone who heard it from someone who...


"But Obama?"

Like you know.

"The beginning of Obama’s decline in the polls was the Berlin speech."

No it wasn't, it was the hiring of Schmidt who broke out the Karl Rove smear playbook. The polls didn't spike or plummet following the Berlin speech, as was amply reported-and gloated on- by Mr. K himself. Now this ham-handed reversal?
If we're going to re-invent history, at least wait a respectable 2-3 months - by then, some of us might have had time to forget your last prattle on the subject!


"It took a while for the absurdity of that event to sink in, and for the McCain campaign to take perfect advantage of it in parody. Not only did Berlin (as a stand-in for a host of grand Obama gestures) prove a liability in and of itself. But, additionally, it accentuated the basic thinness of Obama’s history and experience."

Circular logic, speculation, begs the question..."and a partridge in a pear tree." The writer, of course, cannot be accused of ad homniem in the specific, for it permeates the entire narrative of the article, in slant if not by the more honest route of polemic invective.

"The point of the Democratic National Convention is to pad the biography and to make it look dramatic and heroic. And, on the other hand, to try to control the Obama acceptance speech, which he scheduled as a mass cult-of-personality event in front of 80,000 screaming fans at Invesco Field."

We take it it's the "80,000 screaming fans" that bothers you. Try to suck it up: Maybe they're cheering out of something other than rampaging ignorance.

Maybe it's to transfer power to people who wouldn't waste their time projecting their irrationality onto others in the name of...of....???

"Obama’s task is to make it sober and measured."

You don't know what his task is and to say that you do is mere hubris.

"Success is possible."

You're not the arbiter of success or failure. Those 80,000 people are, and as many others as they can transmit that enthusiasm to.

"He can pull it off with a good speech -- rooted, serious, light on the cosmic pretensions -- and good camera angles."

Vague to the point of absurdity.

"At least the cheers will be in English rather than German"

You didn't genuinely feel snubbed by O's Berlin speech: Why pretend as if you were? For what point and purpose this exaggerated sense of victemhood?

Posted by: David | August 26, 2008 4:01 AM | Report abuse

I encourage someone with more time than myself to survey these reader comments and those of other blogs as well to determine the percentage of prospective voters who give informed, thought out reasons for their dislike of a candidate. What would also be interesting is to get a number on what percentage of people roll out the canned reasons for not voting for one or the other: "Obama will raise taxes," or "A McCain presidency will amount to four more years of Bush." Lastly, I'd like to know the percentage of people (however miniscule it may be) who demonstrate the capacity to acknowledge the virtues of the candidate they are NOT supporting.

This is an important election. We must be measured and fair in our reasoning and not allow ourselves to be manipulated by skewed facts and sensationalism. Lest you forget, our reelection of George W. Bush in 2004 will forever be a stain on our generation. From this point forward, I would like history to have something good to say about us. Being mindless propaganda receptacles who aggressively play these canned "facts" on an endless loop is not going to help. Turn off the talking heads, be them on the TV or the radio. They aren't there to provide you with useful political insight, but to incite enough people to raise their ratings. And stop saying vile things to one another and about these candidates. It adds nothing and subtracts a great deal. This is too important. The last thing we need is a political party pissing contest when we need to be electing the best President.

Posted by: Patrick Hart | August 26, 2008 4:04 AM | Report abuse

Mr. Krauthammer do you have another job writing talking points for Fox news? If you don't you should really look into getting paid for your propaganda. Did Bush have anything that would pass for a "Resume" beyond his name, some would say birthright? For that matter what did Clinton have besides charisma? Not even a partisan hack can deny the 90's were a good time in America, and I spent the 90's in the military.

Speaking of Reagan, he could have won if he would have ran as anything short of a communist, it just happened that he chose the Republican party, and like the rest of the nation was dooped into doing its bidding. Do you really believe that Dick Cheney doesn't get his power from the way King George saw his father run the country from behind closed doors while using the "Gipper" as a front man?

For the hacks that want to talk about an activist court, they are the people who installed this tyrant! 9-11 would have never happened if the Supreme Court had not overridden the will of the people and allowed a fraudulent bunch of political thugs steal an election!

Obama another Carter? As much as it boils my progressive blood, that is a reasonable corollary. Carter was elected because he was an outsider and the American people were sick and fed up with Washington and the Republican party. Ironically many of those same people are now in this administration, and are using Nixon's very own playbook ie lieing, cheating, spying, stealing, war profiteering, subverting the constitution, and creating illegal wars(Cambodia). Not even Nixon would have tried for the franchising of torture though, and at least in the end Nixon did the honorable thing and fell on his sword for the sake of the country. More than we could ever hope for from this band of bloody despotic low life's.
Carter was and still is a great statesman, a nobel prize winner, and forever an example of why a decent man can not succeed in Washington. Funny you never see a Republican winning a nobel prize? Since Obama is ultimately a decent human being, not a war monger and does not subscribe to the modern fascist ideal he will either not be elected, or like carter be torn to shreds by a Corporate Main Stream Media who's self importance is overshadowed only by its incompetence, and a populous that is so proud in its ignorance that it is completely blind to what this administration has done and how much pain it is going to cause in order to at least try to fix it.

How many story's have you buried for the current administration Mr. Krauthammer, how many lies has the Corporatized Media helped this administration shove down the throats of the American people? Now this same Media is running a smear campaign against someone who simply wants something better for the people of this nation, a "change" in the way things have been done. All the time giving Grumpy McSame the benefit of the doubt when he lies and smears and exagerates and making up absolute lies about the other candidate to re-enforce the very real racist bigoted ideals that permeate this nation.

You say you can't understand why it's so close? When is the last time a non incumbent presidential candidate won by a landslide? Do you know? Of course you do, it's never happened, but that is not necessary to report in a world were making up editorialized propagandized opinion that passes for news is more important than facts, issues or real debate.

Posted by: Anonymous | August 26, 2008 4:04 AM | Report abuse

I encourage someone with more time than myself to survey these reader comments and those of other blogs as well to determine the percentage of prospective voters who give informed, thought out reasons for their dislike of a candidate. What would also be interesting is to get a number on what percentage of people roll out the canned reasons for not voting for one or the other: "Obama will raise taxes," or "A McCain presidency will amount to four more years of Bush." Lastly, I'd like to know the percentage of people (however miniscule it may be) who demonstrate the capacity to acknowledge the virtues of the candidate they are NOT supporting.

This is an important election. We must be measured and fair in our reasoning and not allow ourselves to be manipulated by skewed facts and sensationalism. Lest you forget, our reelection of George W. Bush in 2004 will forever be a stain on our generation. From this point forward, I would like history to have something good to say about us. Being mindless propaganda receptacles who aggressively play these canned "facts" on an endless loop is not going to help. Turn off the talking heads, be them on the TV or the radio. They aren't there to provide you with useful political insight, but to incite enough people to raise their ratings. This too important and we have a responsibility to be informed.

Posted by: Patrick Hart | August 26, 2008 4:07 AM | Report abuse

Did you all know that Mr. Krauthammer devised a "secret plot to destory the United Nations" for John McCain? He brags about it here to the UK Press. Sounds crazy doesn't it? But it's true. Here's an excerpt and the article. No,it's not a tabloid, it's the UK equivalent to the NYT or Wa Po.

Charles Krauthammer, the conservative Wash Post writer, who invented the plan, says: "What I like about it is, it's got a hidden agenda. It looks as if it's about listening and joining with allies... except the idea here, which McCain can't say but I can, is to essentially kill the UN to create an alternative to legitimize Military actions."

http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/johann-hari/johann-hari-john-mccain-and-his-secretive-plot-to-kill-the-un-903998.html

Posted by: Julia Roberts | August 26, 2008 4:15 AM | Report abuse

"He can pull it off with a good speech -- rooted, serious, light on the cosmic pretensions -- and good camera angles."

Vague to the point of absurdity.

"At least the cheers will be in English rather than German"

You didn't genuinely feel snubbed by O's Berlin speech: Why pretend as if you were? For what point and purpose this exaggerated sense of victimhood?

Posted by: David | August 26, 2008 4:22 AM | Report abuse

"Krauthammer has NAILED IT AGAIN!!!"

When your only tool is a Krazyhammer, every issue looks like a nail...

Posted by: npr | August 26, 2008 4:56 AM | Report abuse

Shorter Krazyhammer: Obama is a ni -- uh, a nobody. An uppity nobody.

Sigh. Where's Richard Widmark when you need him?

Posted by: Anonymous | August 26, 2008 5:02 AM | Report abuse

After eight years of the Republicans building up the shallowest man in our history to serve as president, you call Obama's supporters a cult of personality? Sir, we have seen a cult of personality, and it is the last eight years in which anything Georgia Bush wanted, George Bush got.

And, lest you forget, Mr. Obama had the good sense, even during the deafening cries to invade Iraq, to speak out publicly against the invasion. That showed extreme courage and sound reason. Two good reasons to send him to the White House if you ask me.

Posted by: Steven | August 26, 2008 5:03 AM | Report abuse

Yonkers, New York
25 August 2008

Yes, Charles Krauthammer, going by your twisted logic, the Democrats are picking their weakest candidate for President in Barack Obama and, on the other hand, the Republicans are picking the strongest in John McCain.

Did you really expect the Democrats to go for John Edwards, or Chris Dodd, or Dennis Kusinich?. They almost picked Hillary Clinton--another "weak" candidate as far as you are concerned?--but went for Obama when the political dust settled.

So, you must think that John McCain will win handily in November--because, as you blithely claim, he is the strongest among Republican hopefuls.

Okay, assuming that he is the "strongest" (probably meaning the one who will beat his Democratic opponent easily), a John McCain presidency will be nothing more than a George W. Bush administration, Part II!

Do you really believe that this is what America wants? Give me an honest answer, Charles.

Mariano Patalinjug
MarPatalinjug@aol.com

Posted by: Mariano Patalinjug | August 26, 2008 5:10 AM | Report abuse

I am not impressed with Obama's experience or lack there of. But isn't that the way it is today? Isn't today's young in the work place exactly like that.

I will not be surprised if Obama is elected because of his lack of experience and his grandiose image. That is what young folks look for - An American Idol or a Dancing with the Stars - star. I will just be prepared for higher taxes and a continuation of the last 40-50 years of "we the middle class" still owe a debt to the poorest of poor. So here comes the tax man.
Don't think for a moment when Obama makes those dirty rotten oil companies pay that those same companies won't pass that buck on down to us ordinary folks that don' own mansions or more than one house.

Posted by: GOP girl | August 26, 2008 6:08 AM | Report abuse

Krauthammer is less a swiftboat than a leaky canoe. But he's low in the water near the mud flats, and scoops what he can to throw at Democrats.

Posted by: Frodot | August 26, 2008 6:39 AM | Report abuse

"Mad Mac: he'd only use the nuclear trigger as a first resort, honest!"

Posted by: Wario | August 26, 2008 7:14 AM | Report abuse

Seriously though: it's an election between a young black guy from Chicago and an old white millionaire dude. It was always going to be a referendum on the black guy.

Posted by: Yoshi | August 26, 2008 7:15 AM | Report abuse

Krauthammer on foreign policy is worth reading if only for his contrarion views, throwbacks to an era of U.S. global dominance, for which Mr. K has great nostalgia, and an era of U.S. mpral leadership, which Mr. Bush has squandered. On domestic politics, the shrillness of K mars even the most favorable reading of his pieces. After 19 months of a sometimes bitter and abusive campaign, I doubt that many voters who can read at he sixth grade level don't know who Obama is. Even the viral messages on the internet are corrected by Obama supporters who insist on facts. The danger to America is not Obama, but K's pandereing to those millions of voters who lie along the axes of ignorance, the less edcuated, the racially prejudiced, and those who know less than beans about foreign affairs, and who believe that big guns are always the answer. Obama has positions some may question in the particulars,but the contrast between his views and those of Senator McCain are clear to any except those who are obtuse, or who willfully refuse to inform themeselves about the candidates. More likely, and the polls will bear this out, "I don't know Obama or his views" is not too subtle code for "I know he's black, and that's all I need to know to vote for the old white guy who was a POW." That's K's audience, and shame on him for pandering to the least thoughtful and open among us.

Posted by: dwmulenex | August 26, 2008 7:17 AM | Report abuse

Republicans = the party of smoke and mirrors. Enough smoke and all you can see is Obama, and not the last 8 years. Enough funhouse mirrors and McCain looks attractive.

Posted by: stan | August 26, 2008 7:29 AM | Report abuse

Michelle's speech was fake, sickening, and obviously said what she was told to say. She couldn't very well come out and say, "kill whitey" now could she. If people can't see through that production and drivel, they will swallow anything.

Oh, and the fact that Daddy knows best just happened to appear, ("hi daddy!") at the precise moment, and play his Ward Cleaver phony crap was enough to make me puke. The tears streaming down the faces of the idiot crowd, OMG, what was it, ELVIS back from the dead? Kool Aid drinkers.

The kids are cute, so are everyone else's. I would not vote for them either.

I am very amazed at the absence of liberal tolerance for the ideas of others, the opinions and free speech they rant about all the time, unless of course, you don't agree with THEM.

Posted by: lisa blackstock | August 26, 2008 7:34 AM | Report abuse

How you can call yourself an American is beyond me....


Posted by: pv | August 26, 2008 7:42 AM | Report abuse

Ummmm, it says I am an American on my birth certificate.
I suspect a lot of things are beyond you.

Posted by: lisa blackstock | August 26, 2008 7:46 AM | Report abuse

Dateline: Georgetown, Guyana November 1978.
Cult leader James Warren "Jim" Jones stages a giant political rally. He was a friend of Mayor Moscone, Walter Mondale and Rosalynn Carter and was building a socialist paradise in Guyana.

Dateline: Denver, Colorado August 2008.
Cult leader Barack Obama stages a giant political rally at the Mile High Stadium. He wants to build a socialist paradise in America. His aspirations are a mile high and his sincerity is an inch deep.

Kool Aid anyone?

Posted by: alance | August 26, 2008 8:22 AM | Report abuse

Actually, I think the neoconservative Mr. Krauthammer actually likes and perhaps even identifies a bit with the elegant, eloguent Mr. Obama. He's just toeing that good old Republican line.

Posted by: jboykin | August 26, 2008 8:25 AM | Report abuse

I wonder how many houses the Kennedys have? The Dems never seemed to care about that number.

Posted by: JC | August 26, 2008 8:29 AM | Report abuse

The quip about making sure the convention includes good camera angles reminded me of this satirical, but dead-on, Onion story:

http://www.theonion.com/content/news/obama_practices_looking_off_into

Posted by: rb | August 26, 2008 8:29 AM | Report abuse

BILL CLINTON FOR SECY. OF STATE. WITH JOE BIDEN AND BILL ON OUR TEAM WE ARE "IN LIKE FLYNN" AND AMERICA WINS BY A LANDSLIDE!!!!!!!!!!!! OBAMA DO IT AND BILL GIVE US ALL YOU GOT AND THAT IS WHAT WE NEED TO MAKE THIS ELECTION THE BEST AND THE BIGGEST HOPE FOR US ALL!!! CAUSE BILL, NO ONE CAN COME NEAR YOU WHEN IT COMES DOWN TO THE BOTTOM LINE. WE NEED YOU A WHOLE BUNCH

Posted by: LYNN PARKER | August 26, 2008 8:30 AM | Report abuse

We all agree that the Republicans do it better than the Democrats. That is a given. With that said they (R) screwed up the last 8 years therefore why not give the (D's) a chance for the next four years. They could not do any worst that the last administration even if they try.

Posted by: itstime | August 26, 2008 8:33 AM | Report abuse

BILL CLINTON FOR SECY. OF STATE. WITH JOE BIDEN AND BILL ON OUR TEAM WE ARE "IN LIKE FLYNN" AND AMERICA WINS BY A LANDSLIDE!!!!!!!!!!!! OBAMA DO IT AND BILL GIVE US ALL YOU GOT AND THAT IS WHAT WE NEED TO MAKE THIS ELECTION THE BEST AND THE BIGGEST HOPE FOR US ALL!!! CAUSE BILL, NO ONE CAN COME NEAR YOU WHEN IT COMES DOWN TO THE BOTTOM LINE. WE NEED YOU A WHOLE BUNCH

Posted by: LYNN PARKER | August 26, 2008 8:36 AM | Report abuse

Krauthammer has NAILED IT AGAIN!!!

Posted by: THE BARON | August 25, 2008 8:09 PM
======================================

No, no, no. John Edwards has NAILED IT AGAIN.

Posted by: RielleH | August 26, 2008 8:50 AM | Report abuse

wow, its so amazing to see how divisive and split america has become. people are split down lines so clear they almost hate each other. I was born and raised there, but saw through the bulls**t of the nion administration and by the regan years became disgusted only to have to get up and leave when the first bush came into power to ruin the country the first time.

Its amazing americians even voted bush 2 in twice (I know, I know, stolen election, all that) he should have lost by a landslide..everyone knew he'd been lying

anyway...my point - you people have to heal your wounds and get it together. Get some intelligence. String up "neo conservative" journalist that fire up stupid people. America USED to be a smart place, a cool country to live. People thought about things instead of knee jerk reactions
what happened to my country?
PS..WHO the f**k "all" agrees the republicains do better
God you people have become so stupid and brainwashed....., LOOK, ACTUALLY LISTEN
actually think for a change

Posted by: pan | August 26, 2008 8:58 AM | Report abuse

put the clintons back in as cabinat
USA had a great world standing for 8 years in between the bush heads...we were admired, well liked, well off, and not spending a trillion a week on wars
the PEOPLE need that money, not the arms manufacturers and oil merchants

Posted by: panagain | August 26, 2008 9:06 AM | Report abuse

Kraut hamster says "Obama’s problem is that he has compounded it with a detached imperiousness and unnerving grandiosity so completely disproportionate to his own accomplishments" Mr kRAUTHamster you are the one who is grandiose. You are not important. Even Michelle is more famous, more articulate. more intelligent and charismatic than you Mr KrautHamster.
Thes uppity negroes ought to be back on the cotton farm stacking bales for the steamboat on ole man river, right?
Grandiose huh? Dem cottonpickin uppity slaves should know their place. Dey should get deir banjos and play the blues on their ole Kentucky porch. Dats wot dem uppity servants should be doing, hey Mr Krauthammer. Right ASPERGIRL?

Posted by: mIGHTY cROWS | August 26, 2008 9:12 AM | Report abuse

According to Krauthammer, Obama is grandiose. This is classic "he is getting too uppitty" nonsense. Its code racism

Posted by: Mighty Crows | August 26, 2008 9:21 AM | Report abuse

as I said people - especially journalists- have gotten stupider. Why do Americians allow this.
Try them
convict them
then lets go back to REAL news
not FOX news
its silly

Posted by: pan | August 26, 2008 9:27 AM | Report abuse


...unnerving grandiosity so completely disproportionate to his own accomplishments....

Krauthammer's autobiography ?

Posted by: HumbleBee | August 26, 2008 9:38 AM | Report abuse

...of course krauthammer nailed it...he always does. that's why he always has the most comments on his wapo op eds. all the activist lefties cannot stand when confronted with an articulate and reasoned essay that runs contrary to their mostly radical views..charles' concise conclusions are always a welcome breath of fresh air...thanks chuck!!

Posted by: jbfromfc | August 26, 2008 9:43 AM | Report abuse

Obama rules.

Posted by: iluvobama | August 26, 2008 9:48 AM | Report abuse

Leave it up to the Krauth to give advise to Obama, after relentlessly bashing him for 2 years. Guess what Kraut....he's up there getting the nomination, and you're still the loser in a wheelchair. Some thanks for some racist owners of the post, or you'd be out of a job by now.

Posted by: playa | August 26, 2008 9:51 AM | Report abuse

Listening to Krauthammer opine on what Obama's task is is akin to listening to the devil opine on what God's task should be - it's absurd. The leading (and discredited) neocon war cheerleader weighing in on the Obama candidacy: think that'll have any credibility?

Let's see....ummm.....NO.

Another waste of newspaper space...

Posted by: Anonymous | August 26, 2008 9:52 AM | Report abuse

Obama will make this nation great and finally make the rich pay their share.

Posted by: iluvobama | August 26, 2008 9:52 AM | Report abuse

Krauthammer's column, and the anti-Obama comments here are pretty laughable. A whole lot of hot air could be saved in this election with one simple ground rule: anyone who voted for Bush -- one of the least qualified presidents in American history -- has disqualified himself from commenting on Obama's "resume."

Posted by: rashomon | August 26, 2008 9:54 AM | Report abuse

I'm tired of old white men running the country.

Posted by: iluvobama | August 26, 2008 9:58 AM | Report abuse

Mr. Krauthammer doesn't have to love Obama to be right in his assessments of the candidates weaknesses. Many people I talk to like Obama but feel they don't know anything about him. If you wan to know what many voters are thinking these days, go out for breakfast some Saturday morning where the seniors eat, and just let them talk over coffee...

Posted by: kb | August 26, 2008 10:01 AM | Report abuse

I am in France at the moment. Obamania is cooling down in Europe and, like the Americans they love to hate, French and their neighbors have come to realize that this nice and young fellow is an empty suit.
So once again you're right on target with one exception: De Gaulle.The man had a vision for his country and served her loyally and unselfishly till the end. Aside from Reagan could you name a modern US president whose achievements would be worth a mention in the history books?

Posted by: M.H.Carivenc | August 26, 2008 10:06 AM | Report abuse

One of the things lacking in Krauthammer's piece is a listing --- a mention, even -- of the tremendous experiential qualifications of Senator John McCain.

Senator McCain's primary occupation has really been that of pampered playboy. Granted, he's been at it a long time ----maybe that's the experience that Krauthammer feels need not even be mentioned.
Funny, there seem to be a lot of Republican water carriers who feel the same way.

Posted by: Wes Cain | August 26, 2008 10:10 AM | Report abuse

Who is John McCain? I thought Hillary was running against Obama?

Posted by: Me | August 26, 2008 10:16 AM | Report abuse

"Yet the postings we've seen here are amazingly incoherent, loaded with illogic, abusive, and venemous."

Do you mean "venomous"? Abusive what?

Posted by: Bubba | August 26, 2008 10:34 AM | Report abuse

Johnny M in a landslide. Trust me.

Posted by: John Messina | August 26, 2008 10:36 AM | Report abuse

Obama in a landslide. I will celebrate with a mudslide.

Posted by: iluvobama | August 26, 2008 10:38 AM | Report abuse

Mr. Krauthammer, back in June you recommended that McCain make Iraq the centerpiece of his campaign, a policy that would win him the White House. McCain understood Iraq, he had been there and he knew the people and he knew the leaders and he knew the generals. McCain knew what George Bush knew and they were RIGHT!

And that loser Obama was trying to get of us out Iraq on a timetable! What a doofus is how you referred to Obama. What happened with that idea? And why are the leaders of Iraq & the US, and the people of Iraq, along with the generals pushing forward a timetable, not some time horizon, to get the US out of their country? That simple man you called a doofus sure is making some headlines and showing great strength! I believe your centerpiece is wilting Mr. Krauthammer. But the disaster with your dinner party lies not in the junk food you dish out but in the people at your table who continue to show bad form.

Your featured host for the past 8 years was and is less suited for the presidency than any president in history. The best thing on his resume was that he was a sports team owner. His administration has done more damage than anyone can comprehend, let alone try to fix in our lifetime. My favorite Bush quote comes from his speech to the OECD in June of this year, "On the other side are men who place no value on life, allow no room for dissent, and use terror to impose their harsh ideology on as many people as possible. Ultimately, the only way to defeat the advocates of this ideology is to defeat their ideas."

Let's look at that phrase together, because I see a little of you in his "men" reference. Are the Republicans not the party that allows for torture, placing no value on the human lives in their control? No room for dissent…how many dissenters have the Republicans trashed, all the way from the Dixie Chicks, to John Kerry's Swift boaters, to Valerie Plame and her husband. And how do they get away with it, they use terror, or the threat of terror, to impose their harsh ideologies on as many people as possible.

When comedians start to joke about China having better Human Rights records than the US it is time to stop and think what is really going on. With John McCain on the tonight show last night, making light of his age and homes.

That you do support Obama is hard to believe. Those 80,000 people will be but a small percentage of the folks cheering on this maverick. This is a Democratic party that is trying to make America strong and beacon of hope throughout the world. And how will you and the Republicans respond? With ideas? No, you will attack this menace and claim those that follow him just like his demeanor. His simple words of hope that inspire a generation. Destroy him before he takes your power away.

Hmmmm, reminds me of a bible story of a simple man who changed the world. Let me see….

Posted by: fide | August 26, 2008 10:39 AM | Report abuse

All you whinning Idiot females ought to vote for McWhinner who keeps whinning about vietnam. "" WHERES MOMMY ""

Posted by: mr.paul | August 26, 2008 10:40 AM | Report abuse

"how many dissenters have the Republicans trashed"

That's right - the Dems *never* trash people. You aren't trashing someone right now. Good job.

Posted by: Your Mom | August 26, 2008 10:44 AM | Report abuse

Charles K. has written a fair assessment of Obama, but I wonder whether he brought up the "thin resume" issue when George Bush ran for President. Bush was Governor of Texas, true, but he got there mostly on his name, not on any previous accomplishment...in fact, his prior career was flat-out undistinguished.

Posted by: J Rogers | August 26, 2008 10:44 AM | Report abuse

The "parody" is not in Obama; it is in Krauthammer, who is once again peddling garden variety GOP talking points as dispassioanate "analysis." Come on, Chuck. Reagan gets chops for being the "Great Communicator." And Obama's inspiring message of national unity is one of his great strengths. So, tearing a page from Karl Rove's "make your opponent's strength a weakness, Obama's vision for America is reduced in Krauthammer's cribbed hands to prettified rhetoric and a "detached imperiousness and unnerving grandiosity so completely disproportionate to his own accomplishments."

Chuck has done this many times in the past from his own "gradious" platform in the Post. He's nothing more than a shill for the GOP and if you want to find out what the topic of Chuck's next column will be just check out the Republicans latest line of attack.

Posted by: Ted Frier | August 26, 2008 10:50 AM | Report abuse

Mr. Krauthhammer
You are a foul being inside out. Period.

Posted by: hao | August 26, 2008 10:50 AM | Report abuse

Dear Your Mom,

To trash someone is to fling mud with no cause of reason with no facts but to try and silence critics who have real issues with those in power. I am not trashing anyone, I presenting a sound argument to rebut the claims of mr. Krauthammer and the current administration.

You are trying to trash my comments with the same time of argument. You present no facts or ideas. I do and they are valid, certifiable facts. You would do well to wokr on better arguments than focusing on trivial pursuits.

This nation needs leaders who will provide hope and inspiration not someone trying to scare people.

Posted by: fide | August 26, 2008 10:55 AM | Report abuse

Big surprise, more neocon whining about Obama. Krauthead is a moron just like the McBush paid shills on this message board.

Posted by: Anonymous | August 26, 2008 10:57 AM | Report abuse

Please forgive the typos in the last post. "Your mom" was too annoying and I posted before proofreading it.

My apologies.

Posted by: fide | August 26, 2008 10:57 AM | Report abuse

Keep it up, Dr. Krauthammer. Those of us who don't like the taste of Kool-Aid know you are making very good points about a VERY flawed candidate.

Russia, China, Iran, Venezuela, Hamas...they're all drooling at the chance to get this yutz into office, so they can do whatever they want on the world stage with no repercussions from the pushover as he tries to build a nanny state back home with Reid and Pelosi.

Unfortunately for them, but lucky for us, Americans are too smart to put this empty suit into the White House.

It's going to be crushing for the left when he loses.

Posted by: ep | August 26, 2008 10:57 AM | Report abuse

I read through all this and the most striking thing is the same thing which will march John McCain into the White House. Disunity.

Listen to the Republican side. Yes, there were rumblings when it first looked like McCain was going to win the nomination. Do you hear them now? No. They know what the important thing is: to get the presidency! Every idiot that says "poor Hillary" or "Obama is so weak" just makes that easier. Don't you realize that Hillary's and Obama's opinions on most issues is the same, that he will push the Democrats' views once he gets into office? The primaries are done. Obama won. If you are a Democrat, and want yourself represented, you put your support behind the candidate you want to win. Unfortunately, you all still haven't figured that out, even after 8 years of being losers!

Think on this: the next president will choose, possibly, three Supreme Court candidates over the next four years, all from retirements on the left. You worry about losing your woman candidate? Try worrying about what rights women and minorities, and, in fact, ALL Americans, will lose with a Republican president, a right-wing Court, and a deadlocking congress.

As in 2000, and in 2004, it's your election to lose, and you're doing a great job of it.

Posted by: haggus | August 26, 2008 10:59 AM | Report abuse

"I presenting a sound argument to rebut the claims ..."

Stop yelling at your mom. 'Sound argument' is also a stretch.

Posted by: Your Dad | August 26, 2008 11:02 AM | Report abuse

Alas poor "Your Mom" and "Your dad" you criticize those who dissent. What is your argument? Have you any valid thougths? I would love to see you compose something of value and hear your logic.

I relish the chance to see your view.

Posted by: Fide | August 26, 2008 11:14 AM | Report abuse

Alas poor "Your Mom" and "Your dad" you criticize those who dissent. What is your argument? Have you any valid thougths? I would love to see you compose something of value and hear your logic.

I relish the chance to see your view.

Posted by: Fide | August 26, 2008 11:14 AM | Report abuse

Alas poor "Your Mom" and "Your dad" you criticize those who dissent. What is your argument? Have you any valid thougths? I would love to see you compose something of value and hear your logic.

I relish the chance to see your view.

Posted by: Fide | August 26, 2008 11:14 AM | Report abuse

Krauthammer does it again. He looks into his crystal ball backwards. The fact that he identifies Obama as the weakest Democratic candidate and McCain as the strongest Republican candidate is based solely on the polls of late.

A doubling of the national debt, a war of choice, a dollar in the pits, and a world that has lost its respect for anything U.S. may or may not overcome the racial divide in this country. I applaud Obama for hitting things head on. For whites (of which I am one) to prefer mediocre white men to highly talented and articulate black men in positions of power does not surprise me. It is a time-honored tradition. The thing about Obama is that he is not the stereotypical Black man. He, Michelle, and the two girls portray a classic middle-class American family.

The fact that McCain, an adulterer and opportunist, is being thrust onto the American public by the Republicans who generally hate adulterers is amazing to me.

Mr. Lincoln would be proud of Obama and his family. Obama represents the same kind of pull from the bootstraps that made Lincoln's story so compelling. The fact that the Republicans are spending so much time trying to put Obama in his place by calling him elitist, arrogant, and so forth is surprising from a party that generally respects people with Obama's background.

The true Republicans are out of the bag. They are greedy, vindictive, hateful, and mean. Did I mention racist? The code words are all there for all to see.

Anyone making under $250,000 per year has every reason not to vote for McCain, which should make about 99% of us. The wedge issues that Republicans like to rally around are costing the typical Republican voter a lot of money. Talk about a redistribution of wealth in this country. Look at the facts!

Posted by: Earl C | August 26, 2008 11:14 AM | Report abuse

Alas poor "Your Mom" and "Your dad" you criticize those who dissent. What is your argument? Have you any valid thougths? I would love to see you compose something of value and hear your logic.

I relish the chance to see your view.

Posted by: Fide | August 26, 2008 11:15 AM | Report abuse

"To trash someone is to fling mud with no cause of reason with no facts ..."

Again - the Democrats never do this? Please.

"but to try and silence critics who have real issues with those in power."

How were the Dixie Chicks silenced? Ever hear of Robert Casey? You know... the Democrat who was denied a speaking spot at the 1992 convention because of his opposition to abortion rights?

"You are trying to trash my comments"

I 'trashed' your comments because I am of the opinion that you are trashing someone? So if I have an opinion that you are trashing someone, that means I am trashing you. Ok.

Mommy has to go back to work now. You should too.

Posted by: Your Mom | August 26, 2008 11:16 AM | Report abuse

While I admire Krauthammer, he like the other pundits, are missing the point in the polls. The issues have moved on, from the Iraq war, from the economy in general, to the price of gasoline. Virtually every American feels that pinch and is conserving but that travelling less and going out less is having a ripple effect in the economy. It is not about Obama's resume or his color. It is about this issue.

McCain's energy policy may not be perfect or even workable but it is a better than the Obama plan by leagues. The rural voters in the swing states are closer to the basics than urban voters. They know the sun shining and the wind blowing will not meet their energy needs.

Pelosi's refusal to allow the lifting of the offshore drilling ban to come to the floor hangs over this convention like a pall. It is emblematic of the Democrats reluctance to come to grips with a fundamental problem for the people.

Posted by: Ed | August 26, 2008 11:16 AM | Report abuse

For everyone who disagrees with Krauthammer...ANSWER WITH FACTS.

(1) WHAT HAS OBAMA DONE?
(2) WHAT HAS OBAMA ACCOMPLISHED?
(3) HE SPEAKS WELL, BUT WHAT PROVES THAT HE CAN ACTUALLY GET ANYTHING DONE?
(4) SHOW ME, DON'T TELL.

If you can answer that without typical emotional cult-like-blindness, and outlandish claims WITH NO EVIDENCE

THEN SPEAK UP... OTHERWISE SHUT UP.

Posted by: Tony V | August 26, 2008 11:17 AM | Report abuse

Charlie's a trained psychiatrist (and a trained rightwinger seal politically). He seemingly could use some difficult, self-diagnostic time in an effort to root out the source of his vitriolic contempt for those dissenting hordes, whom he perceives as so far beneath his eminent presence and superior wisdom.

Posted by: Janus55 | August 26, 2008 11:21 AM | Report abuse

Fide - I heard you the first time. Has it ever occurred to you that some people don't take the idiotic 'debate' that takes place in comment areas such as this seriously - that many spend a few moments to post some nonsense, just to see people get into a tizzy? I could be a Democrat. I could be a Republican. I could have posted under 5 different names with 5 different opinions.

Posted by: Your Dad | August 26, 2008 11:22 AM | Report abuse

For Wes Cain:

In addition to his 26 years in congress, John McCain worked in business, commanded a squadron in the Navy, flew as a pilot in Vietnam and stood up for his fellow American soldiers as a prisoner of war for 5 years while resisting torture from the North Vietnamese. Not enough experience for you?

What were Joe Biden ("Mr. Experienced") and Barack Obama doing while McCain was in Vietnam? Joe Biden was a member of a county board and Obama was in grade school.

For those here obsessed with IRAQ, Joe Biden VOTED IN FAVOR OF THE INVASION OF IRAQ!! Obama, in a contradictory way, VOTED TO FUND THE CONTINUATION OF TROOP PRESENCE IN IRAQ. Typically, he did not put his money where his mouth was. These guys are not credible on Iraq or anything else.

Posted by: ttj | August 26, 2008 11:31 AM | Report abuse

The Republicans (whose current leader's resume was less than impressive at the time of election) have shown for the past 8 years how they govern and what the consequences will be ... war, recession, energy crisis, soaring debt... Mr. McCain was, presumably, a part of the Republican Party for the past 30 years... Where are we now? ... war, recession, energy crisis, soaring debt... Mr. McCain's 'experience' doesn't seem to have had any more impact in all that long period of time than Mr. Obama's so-called 'lack of experience' Where are we now? ... war, recession, energy crisis, soaring debt...

Tell me again why we should be afraid of an Obama Democratic presidency.

Posted by: sharons | August 26, 2008 11:43 AM | Report abuse

He's been running for 1 1/2 years he is not yet elected and here is what he has accomplished:
1. He RADICALLY changed the face of campaign finance, proving that an unlikely candidate can shatter fundraising records without taking a dime from PACs or registered lobbyists, in like he changed the DNC to do exactly the same. NO other politician has been able to do this.

==>How is being the first Black Democratic candidate in today's anti-Republican climate make him the unlikely candidate? Democrats have been wishing for this for 50 years - he is THE MOST LIKELY candidate for the Democrats. ALSO NOT SURE IF BIG OIL FALLS INTO YOUR CATEGORY OF LOBBYISTS BUT HE AHS ACCEPTED $350,000 IN CONTRIBUTIONS FROM BIG OIL. LOOK IT UP.

2. In the face of being called "dangerously naive" by his opponent he was able to put the wheels in motion for ending the Iraq war, remember "we will not accept a timeline"? Bush, Maliki AND McCain have ALL adopted OBAMA's timeline plan.
NO OTHER politician has been able to do this.

==>THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION IS OBLIGING THE REQUESTS OF A SOVEREIGN IRAQI GOVERNMENT. THEY MAY NOT AGREE WITH THE ANALYSIS THAT IRAQ WILL BE ABLE TO PROTECT ITSELF IN 2011 BUT THEY ARE STILL IN AGREEMENT WITH THE IRAQ GOVERNMENTS WISHES.


Remember, he isn't even elected and he has accomplished more than Bush in 8 years.

==>UH, WHAT EXACTLY ARE YOU REFERRING TO?

I know you hate Obama Mr. Krauthhammer but you are just showing your lack of objectivity, you are no critical thinking journalist, just a partisan cynic. Your ilk will go down with the rest of them when they are voted out.

Posted by: JR | August 25, 2008 7:03 PM

Posted by: Patriots Against Obama | August 26, 2008 11:44 AM | Report abuse

The War in Iraq is a non issue, rendered that way by the lowering of US casualties. The price of gasoline has eclipsed it as an issue and to that end, any new president knows that keeping the peace in Iraq is essential to keeping the price of crude from spiraling once again. For that reason, we are in Iraq for the foreseeable future, with substantial remaining forces (35-50,000) no matter who is president. As a matter of fact, Obama absolutely refuses to discuss how many troops will remain in country after the "withdrawal".

Posted by: Ed | August 26, 2008 11:44 AM | Report abuse

Indeed....how many houses do the Kennedys (those same Kennedys exalted by Michelle Obama) have?

They and the millionaire Obamas amassed their wealth standing up for the little guy, of course.

Posted by: ttj | August 26, 2008 11:54 AM | Report abuse

Charlie baby,are you not the same neo-con that wants the U S to spill blood & treasury everwhere you & billy kristol believe we should.Oh, have you or your neocon buddies ever served a day in combat, or for that matter, in the military? Where were you people when dickie, the chicken chiney, & crowd sent in marines without available armor.you guys need to transfer to Arabia where real conservatives live. Obama will mess up your playhouse you chicken wimp.

Posted by: tlrasnic, Virginia | August 26, 2008 11:56 AM | Report abuse

As for the thin resumes, Obama's is not too bad. He has been a very good student in two elite colleges, to which he gained admission based on his academic merit. He was the editor in HLR, and a good one by all accounts. I don't know of any governor or representative with these credentials. He has been a state legislator, a college professor, and a community organizer (i.e., a clueless idealist). Again, not too bad in my book. What he is missing is any executive experience. But the same holds for McCain, who has a knack for upsetting his own party and running his campaigns into the ground.

I would say that Krauthammer's criticism is however flawed. "Experience" or a think resume are not good predictors of a good president. Buchanan, Hoover and Nixon had experience and were bad. Lincoln, Reagan, Kennedy had relatively little experience and were good. I could also provide counterexamples in the other direction.

Choosing a president is a gamble, and this year both candidates are harder to assess than in the previous six presidential elections.

Interestingly, I don't recall Krauthammer citing the lack of experience of the incumbent president as a great drawback. His conclusions are always more predictable than the outcome of this election.

Posted by: gappy | August 26, 2008 11:58 AM | Report abuse

I love how the Washington Post continuously highlights negative story lines about Obama and then incredulously asks why he isn't doing better?

Look at the front of the site today. We see "Obama, Kennedy Electrify Crowd" followed immediately by "Dots Left to Connect" and "Watchword is ... Worry". The take home from the Post's convention coverage is negative, even though the speakers last night were very strong.

I was genuinely moved hearing Michelle Obama's story. Kennedy showed why his name is still revered in the halls of our nation's capital. I fully expected to see Jesse Jackson Jr. hailed as the next great orator of our times, but I can find barely a mention of him in the coverage. The speech by Leach was powerful and serious.

Report the facts of the night rather than offering brain dead analysis. Let voters decide what to think rather than telling them the Democrats are doing a bad job so you'll have more interesting story lines going into the next convention.

Posted by: fletc3her | August 26, 2008 12:08 PM | Report abuse

The often repeated notion of how ahead the democrats should be may simply be mistaken. In fact, the electorate this time around largely resembles that of previous elections. Should we assume that fundamental political predispositions should have shifted because of the current climate? I think probably not.

With Obama, either you see it or you don't. I see a candidate of unusual intelligence and depth who shares my values. I have not said that about any candidate in a long time. The charisma and soaring rhetoric are just gravy, but let's face it, other candidates would kill for such skills. It also helps to have been right on a few things, unlike many of his critics.

Posted by: MShaughn | August 26, 2008 12:12 PM | Report abuse

"His greatest achievement in life is, of course, winning the Democratic nomination for the presidency. But as a reason to elect him president, that has the same kind of circularity as does his “we are the ones we've been waiting for" refrain."

Exactly, but so what? In politics perception is reality. By acting as an intelligent, competent, energizing leader he actually has become one. No one running for president has actually done the job before so none of them are qualified in the traditional sense. If he acts like a leader, he becomes one. I think he'll do fine if given the chance.

Posted by: Observer in WI | August 26, 2008 12:16 PM | Report abuse

Krauty is getting to be like "noun, verb, POW" WcCain.

Krauty is "noun, verb, and I'll do anything in my power to stop Obama from getting elected".

We get it Krauty....you don't like Obama.

Surely you can write at least one article w/out pointing out your disdain for Obama.....

Posted by: Good lord.... | August 26, 2008 12:20 PM | Report abuse

Krauthammer is much less offensive on television. I finally got a glimpse of the guy the other night on CNN. He didn't look nearly as tough as in the WaPa photo, spoke in a whiny manner, and behaved almost pleasantly. I wondered if perhaps he drinks to excess while writing columns. Anyway, I suggest he be relieved of his writing duties and put exclusively on cable tv, where he seems more healthy and we all can be happier.

Thank you for reading.

Posted by: binkynh | August 26, 2008 12:21 PM | Report abuse

Earl C. has it exactly right. If we look back fairly, the only impressive thing in President Lincoln's background was a series of speeches which did not get him the job he sought (the "Spot Resolution" was a blip on the radar). Yet he was our finest president, because of his judgment and character.

We always take a gamble in electing a president: who knew that President Bush would leave his cautious conservative roots so far behind in an embrace of adventurism?

I think it is time to take another chance on a young man from Illinois.

Posted by: History Buff | August 26, 2008 12:27 PM | Report abuse

The argument that Obama is aloof and self-absorbed is one that can be laid at the feet of every political figure in America. Grand gestures are also part and parcel of political postering.

I don't expect Krauthammer to like any Democratic candidate, but his critique of Obama is no more intellectually compelling than the critiques over fashion heaved at political women. Once, he asked, "who does this guy thinks he is?" My answer would be, "he thinks he's the next President of the United States." Many would agree.

Posted by: LAB | August 26, 2008 12:29 PM | Report abuse

I meant "gappy," not Earl C.

Posted by: History Buff | August 26, 2008 12:30 PM | Report abuse

Why is it that whenever I see someone touting Obama's "Change" message they use that word in conjuction with changing from the "old white men"? Can you be more blatantly racist?

Posted by: Illuminated | August 26, 2008 12:42 PM | Report abuse

Indeed....how many houses do the Kennedys (those same Kennedys exalted by Michelle Obama) have?

They and the millionaire Obamas amassed their wealth standing up for the little guy, of course.

Posted by: ttj | August 26, 2008 11:54 AM

##########################################

McCain came from a wealthy family (like GW Bush and married into $100 million.

Obama came from a poor family and built up $4 million from selling his books.

You tell me who is closer to the little guy.

Posted by: maggots | August 26, 2008 12:42 PM | Report abuse

Poor Krauthammer sees an emperor without clothes when he looks at Obama. For Obamaworshippers this is heresy and they insult & verbally stab Krauty viciously--same as the muslims who hate those who draw cartoons of Mohammed. Those who want the Perfect One in office do not care about his politics, they want to manipulate power and to displace the white dominance. When they're not in convention, they're talking of how America will be a white-minority nation in three/four decades, and how much they want that day to arrive. Upon his election, nothing will change except a liberal left shift.

Posted by: ZANEY8 | August 26, 2008 12:42 PM | Report abuse

Would people stop pointing to Barack's role as editor of the Harvard Law Review as a qualification to be President of the United States. If that's the case, we should draft the editor of Time Magazine or the New York Times to run in 2012. Oh yeah, and he's written two books. Come on! Nominate him for a Pulitzer, not POTUS!

Posted by: dcp | August 26, 2008 12:45 PM | Report abuse

I find it fascinating that individuals who relentlessly point to Obama's short political resume were such ardent champions of the current President Bush. What were President Bush's major accomplishments prior to taking office? Managing a baseball team and serving as Governor of Texas. No stronger than Obama's current experience. Were Mr. Krauthammer and others stridently criticizing Bush for his few accomplishments when he sought the Presidency? I politely ask why Obama is considered a naive lightweight , while Bush was not greeted with the same skepticism?

We have no shortage of experienced individuals in Washington, yet it seems very few are objective, probing thinkers. Hence, the current state of the Union. In my view, this is the difference with Obama. His intelligence and attention to listening, gathering facts, and consulting empirical evidence before making decisions more than makes up for any perceived deficit in experience. Would one prefer the nation to be governed by a rigorous, balanced thinker with few years in elected office (e.g. Lincoln) or an experienced individual impervious to dissenting opinions and reasoned argument (President Bush is now a highly experienced elected official)? The overall point is experience is vastly overvalued by the punditry. An experienced leader without the critical reasoning skills and openness to dissent completely negates his or her experience.

I would also submit that a third factor affecting Mr. Obama's electoral chances is his race. I am curious as to why Mr. Krauthammer has neglected to mention this fairly obvious fact. I am astonished and deeply ashamed by the poll results and individual anecdotes the press reports daily on resistance to Obama's campaign by otherwise Democratic voters. In interviews these voters express ambivalence or even antipathy toward Obama without pointing to any deficiency in his candidacy other than his being "different."

Posted by: Carlos Silva | August 26, 2008 12:47 PM | Report abuse

For ttj

What were Joe Biden ("Mr. Experienced") and Barack Obama doing while McCain was in Vietnam? Joe Biden was a member of a county board and Obama was in grade school.

##########################################

What were GW Bush, Dick Cheney, Tom DeLay and all the other conservative chickenhawks doing while McCain was in Vietnam? The same as Biden.


Posted by: Anonymous | August 26, 2008 12:47 PM | Report abuse

Someone named anonymous wrote about Krauthammer, "You sad little man, sniveling and frightened and very, very small." Clearly that person has no capacity to do much other than hurl insults. He (but more likely she) demonstrates no capacity to think and to frame an argument against what the article argued. All the rest of us can surmise is that he or she is angry - but why waste space bothering the rest of us with your emotional state?

Posted by: mhr | August 26, 2008 1:01 PM | Report abuse

Would people stop pointing to Barack's role as editor of the Harvard Law Review as a qualification to be President of the United States. If that's the case, we should draft the editor of Time Magazine or the New York Times to run in 2012. Oh yeah, and he's written two books. Come on! Nominate him for a Pulitzer, not POTUS!

Posted by: dcp | August 26, 2008 12:45 PM

####################################


Sorry about Barack's great credentials. I know you guys prefer ignorant candidates - that's why you voted for Bush.

Posted by: maggots | August 26, 2008 1:09 PM | Report abuse

Poor Krauthammer sees an emperor without clothes when he looks at Obama. For Obamaworshippers this is heresy and they insult & verbally stab Krauty viciously--same as the muslims who hate those who draw cartoons of Mohammed. Those who want the Perfect One in office do not care about his politics, they want to manipulate power and to displace the white dominance. When they're not in convention, they're talking of how America will be a white-minority nation in three/four decades, and how much they want that day to arrive. Upon his election, nothing will change except a liberal left shift.

Posted by: ZANEY8 | August 26, 2008 12:42 PM
#########################################

God forbid that anyone challenge the dominance of the white race!!

Posted by: Anonymous | August 26, 2008 1:13 PM | Report abuse

i do not Charles Krauthammer views on Georgia or his necons view of destroying the world and establish jewish empire. That said OBAMA has achieved nothing. He will achieve nothing even if he elected as president.

But mccain elected as president , i am 100% sure there will be millions people die. World War III is coming ...soon..cold war..alreeady started...

Clintons did not anticipate that OBAMA got Jews financier soros support. Idea is simple. Just support obama to thwart hilary and drop OBAMA to the utter bottom. And make fun of OBAMA , it may back fire or it may influence the voters to believe that OBAMA is naive soul who just wants to be president in gis fairy tale.

World is ugly place mainly because of this bible myth that israel rule the world. Zionist intend on killing 3 billion people to achieve that.

Posted by: Alex | August 26, 2008 1:20 PM | Report abuse

Whew, all this vitriole...for a political junkie like me, this is great...it's like they turned on the giant "crazy magnet" under the streets of Denver...every whack job in the country seems to have been drawn their like moths to flame. I used to be a Democrat, until one day I woke up as an adult and realized I couldn't find any in the Democratic leadership..Pelosi, Kennedy, Reed, the list of these incompetents is long, the list of their accomplishments (real ones) is pathetically short. I've never voted for a Republican before, not once...not on any level, but McCain has my vote. Someone, Anyone, please tell me what B.O. stands for, I've looked at both his Illinois/National Senate records and other than wealth redistribution, (also known as "stealing other peoples money through legislation to enable one to receive the less wealthy/more numerous citizens vote") reparations/apologies for a deplorable institution (slavery) that hasn't existed for over 140 years, and being very vocal in his support of "black history" holidays, there's not much there. And finally, he's a great speaker...when the teleprompter is plugged in, without it, he just bumbles/stumbles along.

Posted by: guadalcanal diary | August 26, 2008 1:27 PM | Report abuse

Its only a dead heat in the republican mind. The polls don't take into consideration those new voters who Obama has brought in. This will be a blow out and once again the republicans will have made the media look like idiots.

Posted by: Jason | August 26, 2008 1:31 PM | Report abuse

Insulting Charles Krauthammer is useless. He is just another tool in neocons plan. neocons started to go overdrive in 1992 but clinton blocked them 8 years.

Now with george bush they have created mayhem in Iraq and the world.

They need another warmonger in mccain. So they need mccain not OBAMA. OBAMA Is fun to talk about and make fun of.

America is not ready for black president. He can be only in a fairy tale or OBAMA has to become evil himself and start to drum up war cry...

If OBAMA wants to be president , all he has to do is WARN RUSSIA and USA will invade RUSSIA..kind of that stuff...That will make Israelis happy.

Even US senators and congressman discuss with israleis first on foreign policies.
Without their support nothing will pass in congress.

Republicans and democrats are just a tool for neocons agenda. necons are already moved to OBAMA side , if by chance he wins...They had to cover all sides.

Ther are so many layers..do not believe in what people say...understand and motive of the people. what they intend to achieve by saying that.

Wake up. I do not like OBAMA , i think he is an elitist who just wants to be president , Zionists will make him next Black JFK. You all remember jewish dude kille jfk. well he was employed by mozzad because JFK was about release secret society that controls america.

No one can survive in america opposing israel even if they commit mass genocide.

Dangerous World.

Posted by: Alexk | August 26, 2008 1:33 PM | Report abuse

I am very puzzled. A friend sent an excellent blog titled "Not Exactly" which went through a long list of claims made by Barack Obama about himself and his achievements. The most striking assertion in this blog was that Mr Obama's ethnic breakdown was, in truth, 50% Caucasian, 45% Arabic and only around 6% African. If this is true it casts a wholly different light on his iconic status. For if my memory of African history is correct, Arab traders were prime movers in the slave trade.

Posted by: Donald Last | August 26, 2008 1:40 PM | Report abuse

Charlie:
Yooou've hit the bull's eye. This race IS Obama's to loose! It remains to be seen whether Obama and the Demos can convince the electorate that Obama has the depth and gravitias to be President.

I also personally think Obama and Co. must decide which segment of the voter profile they want to target. I'am concerned that trying to be all things to all people, as Obama has a habit of doing in his speeches, is simply confusing the electorate and alienating a large segment of the essential (and very angry) non-decided voters and Blue Collar Democrats...

In other words in order to win this close race, Obama must be clear and consise in who he is and what he belives in and leave the essoteric and non-partisan rhetoric for the Class Room and his memoirs...

BIRDDOG

Posted by: Birddog | August 26, 2008 2:20 PM | Report abuse

Mr. Krauthammer,

Is it difficult to be such a partisan boy at all times? Does it ever bother you that you are not taken seriously in your profession? Do you ever pause and think about the fact that you are an unrespected fool whose sole purpose in life is to tow the party line and spread the party's talking points?

Posted by: voicereason | August 26, 2008 2:54 PM | Report abuse

it doesn't matter how thick or thin the obama resume is, he's black case closed. we live in a severely racist society. ok he and michelle pulled themselves up by their bootstraps, went to good schools and still they are not good enough.. my beef with the dems is where is our karl rove. we need to pull out all the stops on demented mcsame who has been given a free pass by white owned media. let's see cheated on his wife, part of keating five, crashed 5 planes, lied about vietnam- who believes that the cong told him that he could leabe because his daddy was an admiral, wife addicted to prescription med, elite old white haired dude. all i have to say if those inbreds in west va. refused to vote for a black man, then yall deserve, war with iran, a draft, overturning of roevswade, overturniing of affirmative action, continured tax cuts for the rich, sitting in the unemployment bread line waiting for trickle down voodoo economic, home foreclosure and not being able to go to walmart. the mindset of the american people or the lack there of continues to not amaze me. and the the ignorant blacks who still vote repu blican based on what their minister's tell then to do is appalling. i am with bill mahr. leave the religion to the numb brains. glad that i don't waste my eye sight of fixed noise (fox news) or the lunatic fringe right. i think that their brains have been stolen by aliens or dick "so" cheney

Posted by: shirley | August 26, 2008 2:55 PM | Report abuse

Thank you Charles... 100% spot-on!
Sorry that so many are too delusional to see the truth. Must have something to do with racism.

Posted by: rick | August 26, 2008 2:57 PM | Report abuse

Maybe the voters opted for Obama because he has 'done it' on his own; no father to make certain he was accepted at the Naval Academy, no family tradition to keep him 'in' when others would have been 'outed' and maybe his only offer for change is ... "I was a prisoner of war!" Dr. K: you provided the expected along with your buddies (Rush, Sean, Glenn, Billy O).

But fret not, Dr. K; Obama has no chance to win once the swift boats undock and racially directed GOP attacks commence!

Posted by: Dr. Tom | August 26, 2008 2:58 PM | Report abuse

Doesn't anyone posting here have a job? I don't because of Bush's lousy economy. Thank goodness I'll be able to fid a job again when Obama wins!

Posted by: iluvobama | August 26, 2008 3:11 PM | Report abuse

It's official: Barack Obama has received no bounce in voter support out of his selection of Sen. Joe Biden to be his vice presidential running mate.

Gallup Poll Daily tracking from Aug. 23-25, the first three-day period falling entirely after Obama's Saturday morning vice presidential announcement, shows 46% of national registered voters backing John McCain and 44% supporting Obama, not appreciably different from the previous week's standing for both candidates. This is the first time since Obama clinched the nomination in early June, though, that McCain has held any kind of advantage over Obama in Gallup Poll Daily tracking.

Posted by: Frank | August 26, 2008 3:25 PM | Report abuse

Wow...Liberals fascists don't take any criticisn of their leader too well.

Posted by: Raulin | August 26, 2008 4:19 PM | Report abuse

As usual, the posts show the left's true colors: name calling and taunting about K in a wheelchair (what happened to their vaunted concern for others?), calling for journalists with whom they disagree to be prosecuted (what first amendment?), and general nonsense (Obama has a record of bringing people together? He can't even bring the Democrats together! All in an uproar over how many houses McCain's wife owns and not a worry in the world over the one Obama bought with his indicted - and now convicted - friend.) Quite a spectacle.

Posted by: SameOld | August 26, 2008 4:30 PM | Report abuse

There is no way on earth those poll numbers are true. The media has done everything in their power to undermine Obama's campaign. Obama announced his VP pick at 3 in the morning and the media had poll numbers out at 5 saying Biden didn't give Obama a bounce. Every time McCain makes a fool of himself his poll numbers go up. It's all conditioning. 200,000 people came to see Obama in Berlin and that made his poll numbers go down. Bull! knew this would happen when we got close to the DNC convention. I'd bet my life this whole thing is rigged.

Posted by: Mike | August 26, 2008 4:32 PM | Report abuse

Obama's task is to take the gloves off and get the word out about McCain. McCain will keep the nightmare of the last 8 years alive ... all Bush all the time. He lives off of a myth about his independence but McCain is no maverick, no straight talker - he is just a pol who has brought in the junk yard dogs. He gives us undying support for Bush's failed Iraq War, full support for maintaining the disastrous tax cuts for the rich in the face of a trillion dollar price tag for the Iraq fiasco, complete dominance of his campaign by Karl Rove's Bushies, in bed like Bush with the Christian Right including Ralph Reed. How is this wrinkled white haired guy McCain any different from warmed-over Bush. Enough is enough!!!

Posted by: jefflz | August 26, 2008 4:34 PM | Report abuse

Charles,

You say Obama began to drop after Berlin which was about 24-July, but RCP tracking shows the drop began 6-July. What happened right after the 4th of July? Could it have been McCain going negative to get some attention from the press that was reporting 70% more stories on Obama? And look at the Time photos on front page - about 7 in 12 months, I think.

Everybody is asking the question - 'why isn't Obama doing better since all generic factors are favoring the Dems?

You only mention the thin resume, but maybe it is a combination of several things (theorized by many pundits):

1. We just don't know who he is and are put off by the media pop star sell and his rapid rise from seemingly nowhere.
2. McCain is better liked than the media realizes. He has had a lot of face time on TV over a long history. People know him.
3. There really is a large Hillary support segment that aren't afraid to switch (this doesn't exactly follow from the Gallup tracking polls that have had BO and JC tied forever).
4. America likes split government and don't want a three house Dem government for fear of excessive programs and spending.
5. We really still are a downright mean and racist nation - at least partially.

I would be interested to see other opinions on what the split for these factors might be.

Posted by: jdwill | August 26, 2008 4:37 PM | Report abuse

"The media has done everything in their power to undermine Obama's campaign"

Are you serious???

Posted by: What?? | August 26, 2008 4:46 PM | Report abuse

As a constituent of Obama's I can assure you that he has done NOTHING in the past 3 years as a Senator to benefit his state beyond promoting himself at every opportunity. His time this summer would have been much better spent in the Senate, conducting hearings for the committee he supposedly chairs and demonstrating that he can actually get ANYTHING done besides waving his lips, rather than touring the Middle East and Europe for photo opps.

Posted by: Illinois Voter | August 26, 2008 4:50 PM | Report abuse

Obama's creds are indeed as thin as your pick of Hollywood socialites. How anyone can think *more taxes* can improve an economy really and truly doesn't get it; doesn't get economics and doesn't get liberty.

Posted by: Hal | August 26, 2008 4:53 PM | Report abuse

As usual, the posts show the left's true colors: name calling and taunting about K in a wheelchair (what happened to their vaunted concern for others?), calling for journalists with whom they disagree to be prosecuted (what first amendment?), and general nonsense (Obama has a record of bringing people together? He can't even bring the Democrats together! All in an uproar over how many houses McCain's wife owns and not a worry in the world over the one Obama bought with his indicted - and now convicted - friend.) Quite a spectacle.

************************

You mean the press says he can't bring them together. Do you really think a few hundred nut jobs that can't live by the rules, matters. Let them vote for McCain. Who cares. They were never democrats anyway. They just wanted to see a woman win. Why don't the press talk about half of the republican party abandoning McCain and backing Obama. That's not on their conditioning agenda ha. No one believes this media garbage anymore. Their all part of Bush's Evil Empire. The neocolonial network. The Ameri-con.

Posted by: HemiHead | August 26, 2008 4:56 PM | Report abuse

Blaming Bush for not having a job is the ultimate sign of weakness and of your own personal failure. This year, I made a personal best from a financial perspective(enough to be considered the evil rich person according to "the One"). Guess I am just that much better than you.

Posted by: Ihateobama | August 26, 2008 4:58 PM | Report abuse

To ihateobama: I would have a job if Bush did not ruin the economy and spend all the countries money in Iraq. You probably inherited your money or work for a corrupt corporation.

Posted by: iluvobama | August 26, 2008 5:08 PM | Report abuse

This election has come down to Obama vs. NObama, and NObama is pulling ahead.

Running on hope is running thin. Perhaps the Boss should consider including this one in his set on Thursday ...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SnnL8wEDNJM&feature=related

Posted by: NObama | August 26, 2008 5:35 PM | Report abuse

Mr. Obama will not be President next January.

Why?

First, his total lack of relevant life experiences. Being a community protestor, state senator and first-timer U.S. senator does not prepare one for the presidency. Maybe a cabinet position or head of university institute.

Second, his hard left views. Obama was ranked the most liberal of all 100 senators by non-partisan National Journal and Mr. Biden was #3. This is a center-right country not a haven for the hard left.

Third, American's don't want the House, Senate and Presidency in the hands of one party.

Fourth, the extremism of many Obama supporters is off-putting to many Americans. Few buy the idea that Obama has been sent by God (Nancy Pelosi) or that Iraq has been reshaped by Obama (see a couple postings above) rather than the hard efforts of U.S. troops.

The election may be close for a bit. But, McCain is likely to prevail. I suspect by a bit more than the margin most expect.

Posted by: Steve | August 26, 2008 6:12 PM | Report abuse

i admit to being SO angry after this last 8 years but it isn't so much about race. it's mainly about how (R)'s have allowed our freedom to be abridged. i'm a racist against racists, yes, (there must be a word for that) and it's grounded in fear, just like regular racism. deep down, i'm afraid that if Mad Mac is elected, by this time next election cycle, i'll be in jail for writing anything critical about our government. they are already bankrupting us, destroying our planet and killing our soldier/citizens, but the constitution, that's it, that's the last straw. we do NOT live in a freakin' empire! i will try to be more civil. my anger will be used to knock on doors to get O elected. i apologize if anyone ever feels offended by my little comments.

Posted by: preAmerikkkan | August 26, 2008 6:48 PM | Report abuse

We must have a continued republican administration for these two reasons:

1) we need to privatize all public education so working families can pay for their children's education (about 8-12,000 per child per year), which will get this cost off our governments backs. We can do for education what Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac did for mortgage loans.

2) we need to get the cost off the backs of corporations and make american families pay their own medical costs(about 19-22,000 per year for a family of five all under 35 years old). This will keep american corporations competitive in countries where they have moved their manufacturing facilities.

If it good for the government and american corporations its good for all of you, too.


Keep those social ideas out of out faces.


Posted by: chris | August 26, 2008 7:23 PM | Report abuse

Thank you Charles Krauthammer for your article. If your critics would only spend half the energy providing for themselves and their families, there would be no housing crisis in America, the economy would be great. To say that these past years have been the worst in recent history is simply nonsense only uttered by the real failures in this country, liberals and their think-alikes. But the country will make them losers again come November 4 when John McCain will be the 44th President of America

Posted by: Klaus Kirchhoff | August 26, 2008 7:28 PM | Report abuse

preAmerikkkan, I'm only offended by your little comments because, well, they're SO little and So stupid.

Posted by: Braincramp | August 26, 2008 8:01 PM | Report abuse

The only post worth reading on here is danny1094. The rest of you are suckers.

Posted by: Klein | August 26, 2008 8:16 PM | Report abuse

Obama is a marxist, at the least, and most probably a communist. Get your head out of your xxsses, and do some simple reasearch. Obama and his America hating wife are worth millions, yet give almost nothing to charity. McCain and wife, on the other hand, give many millions, but without any fanfare. (A good deed is its own reward). Obama has accomplished what amounts to nothing, and might be qualified for dog catcher, but I think he probably also hates dogs.
They represent the perfect affirmative action couple.
They won't win, thank God, because the people will finally see what a total nothing he, and they, are.
Like Ann Coulter says, "If democrats had ANY brains, they'd be Republicans.
And, if you Bami lovers don't like my comments, "sit on it".

Posted by: Earl | August 26, 2008 9:06 PM | Report abuse

Obama is a marxist, at the least, and most probably a communist. Get your head out of your xxsses, and do some simple reasearch. Obama and his America hating wife are worth millions, yet give almost nothing to charity. McCain and wife, on the other hand, give many millions, but without any fanfare. (A good deed is its own reward). Obama has accomplished what amounts to nothing, and might be qualified for dog catcher, but I think he probably also hates dogs.
They represent the perfect affirmative action couple.
They won't win, thank God, because the people will finally see what a total nothing he, and they, are.
Like Ann Coulter says, "If democrats had ANY brains, they'd be Republicans.
And, if you Bami lovers don't like my comments, "sit on it".

Posted by: Earl | August 26, 2008 9:07 PM | Report abuse

As usual, the posts show the left's true colors: name calling and taunting about K in a wheelchair (what happened to their vaunted concern for others?), calling for journalists with whom they disagree to be prosecuted (what first amendment?), and general nonsense (Obama has a record of bringing people together? He can't even bring the Democrats together! All in an uproar over how many houses McCain's wife owns and not a worry in the world over the one Obama bought with his indicted - and now convicted - friend.) Quite a spectacle.

************************

You mean the press says he can't bring them together. Do you really think a few hundred nut jobs that can't live by the rules, matters. Let them vote for McCain. Who cares. They were never democrats anyway. They just wanted to see a woman win. Why don't the press talk about half of the republican party abandoning McCain and backing Obama. That's not on their conditioning agenda ha. No one believes this media garbage anymore. Their all part of Bush's Evil Empire. The neocolonial network. The Ameri-con.

Posted by: HemiHead | August 26, 2008 4:56 PM

***

Sorry but I was under the impression that Clinton and Obama had pretty much tied, that she got 18 million votes, and were not separated by just a few hundred "nut jobs". BTW just about all the documented cheating was by Obama's campaign in the caucuses. As for the reason you have never read in the media about half the GOP backing Obama, it is because that purported "fact" is entirely a figment of your imagination. Would you care to point us to the poll or other data that supports your claim? Thought so. Finally, that you claim that the press is hard on Obama (and soft on Bush!!!) is beyond ridiculous.

Posted by: SameOld | August 26, 2008 9:09 PM | Report abuse

Dr. Krauthammer is dead on the money. Obama is the candidate for young people who still live with their parents, welfare moms and limousine liberals who live in gated communities. His political career if full of cowardice and grandstanding. The 130 "present" votes he cast in the Illinois Senate are the mark of an effete sissy.

McCain, while not perfect, is a man who has sacrificed for this country and put his career on the line more times than can be counted. Gambling on the Iraq surge when everyone else said to surrender took guts. And bringing up immigration reform during a year when he was running for the Republican nomination verged on career suicide. The office of President by definition requires a leader. McCain is such a man.

More and more, Americans are seeing what they dislike in Obama and what they admire in McCain. Krauthammer is correct.

Posted by: Hammer Of Hecate | August 27, 2008 12:17 AM | Report abuse

I don't know about this whole Obama vs. Hillary thing but I'm voting against McCain.

Posted by: jerrydefoe | August 27, 2008 2:05 AM | Report abuse

Krauthammer hasn't 'nailed' anything with his phony astonishment that Obama & McCain are tied, here in late August. McCain is NOT an underdog and never was. No serious person with a lucid grasp of this country's history can claim that. By every measurable criteria, McCain (because of skin color and wealth) had more affirmative action and more networks available to him in life than Obama. The entire floor of this society is slightly raised in McCain's direction. Yet Krauthammer wants to pretend that McCain is just some little wee war hero guy who was walking down the street with a finger in his ear, and was somehow nominated by the Republicans... it's dishonest writing.

Posted by: Darryl | August 27, 2008 2:56 AM | Report abuse

I see the clarity and logic in Charles Krauthammer's analysis.

Based on Obama's limited experience and lack of distinction as a leader in any governing position, and lack of distinction in his professional life, I would say, based on his resume, he is unqualified for the role of president.

Does charisma, being a good speaker, and being a visible minority provide Obama with enough qualifications to tackle international politics, the position of commander-in-chief, and to handle the economic policies of the U.S.?

Obama may possibly, if elected, rise to the occasion. But there is nothing in his past that can predict his future performance. The best that can be said in kindness is that his past performance has been adequate but not outstanding given the intelligence that he may possess.

The man is riding a wave of enthusiasm and is intelligent enough to know, or has handlers that know, how to milk that energy and give him celebrity power. In the final analysis Obama is just empty calories, an unknown mediocre player gifted enough to pretend (at this very moment he can only pretend) he can make a difference.

The big voting factor for me is this: Would I risk defense of my country and the free world based on what I actually know about Obama? If I could vote (I can't, I'm Canadian) my vote would be based on comparing the two candidates based on who I perceive would perform his duties based on his history. I would be voting to put the best man in office, regardless if I agree or disagree with the current administration.

All I can say is God help America make the right decision.

Posted by: grose | August 27, 2008 10:36 AM | Report abuse

I am not a Hillary supporter. However, I would have been comfortable with her in the position of commander and chief. I do not agree with her on many levels, but she has the ability to make hard decisions and she is not naive in her thinking. I agree with Krauthammer that Hillary would have been the candidate to put on the ticket for the Democrats. She won the major states in the primary elections, and she has more broad based appeal.

The President of the US is faced with daily security briefings that would most likely scare the living daylights out of most of us. To me it comes down to who is qualified to handle our national security and deal with hard-nosed foreign leaders. If our national security is not in place, nothing else matters. McCain is an out spoken bi-partisan leader who is not naive on any level. He survived 5 years in a POW camp - that is a character development education that a Harvard education does not come close to. He understands the military and its role in national security. The Republicans could not have put a stronger candidate on the ballot this time. He is a moderate candidate that is willing to go against his own party. He has Independent voter appeal.

Posted by: jess | August 27, 2008 11:10 AM | Report abuse

This is my first time actually reading a blog. Now I know why. Little people with little intelligent thought on either side of the coin. I wonder how many of you were beat up in gym class? Bitter, bitter little people.

Posted by: new blogger | August 28, 2008 10:59 AM | Report abuse

K Ackerman, who's the loser with failed policies? Hillary or Mcain? I thought losers fail to get nominated because they are either out of touch with the electorate, angry or absent-minded.

Do I read bitterness or hatred in your views? A politician uses oratorical skills to spell-out his vision, and he is accused for not having given his best( It was thin in rhetoric but heft in specifics).Another spends TWO MONTHS offering NOTHING except to shoot down his opponent's positive and is hailed as STRONG CANDIDATE!

Posted by: Daniel | August 29, 2008 5:32 PM | Report abuse

Although in logics we may be forgiven for arriving at a conclusion from a convincing premise, sometimes one cannot help grimacing at the simplicity(and mediocrity) of some of our argumentation.

Sample this: Mcain is Vietnam war-hero, and has been in Senate for 26 years. Conclusion: he is the most qualified to be commander-in-chief of US forces. In reality though we know that these alone do not make him better qualified otherwise most past C-in-Cs of America would have failed.

On the other hand many people (most of them naive bloggers)argue that Obama has a thin resume in public office(8 years in Illinois state senate is never mentioned,nor his tutelage at Chicago university law school conveniently ignored).

It is a unique feature of bipartisan American politics that one's academic achievement count for nothing when seeking political office.

Another flawed logic inherent in this campaign, also a distinguishing feature of American politics is how Obama's positives have been virulently used against him, while Mcain's bullish( and sometimes blank) grin and silly remarks are counted as vintage Mcain and a plus!

America here we go! The land of liberty.

Posted by: Daniel | August 29, 2008 6:09 PM | Report abuse

The comments to this entry are closed.

 
 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company