Obama Derangement Syndrome Watch
"Obama is humorless, and full of himself." --Glenn Reynolds
Isn't this the sort of unsupported character judgment that conservatives have spent the last eight years criticizing liberals for making about Bush? (Bush is "stupid," Bush is "evil," etc.) Of course, if the good professor has first-hand personal knowledge of Obama's alleged humorlessness and self-importance, that would be another matter. But if he's judging based on public appearances, wouldn't it be better to say that Obama appears humorless and full of himself, rather than presuming to know what lies inside the man's head, heart and/or soul? A fine distinction, maybe, but one that I think is important for a civil political discourse.
Better yet, wouldn't it be more productive and relevant to focus on actual substantive disagreements with Obama, rather than engaging in cheap shots and attacks on the unknowable inner reaches of the man's character, and generally playing into the GOP's attempt to turn him into a caricature? I thought high-minded conservatives like Glenn wanted to move the national discourse away from that sort of thing.
P.S. TNR's Noam Scheiber writes: "No question Obama--and, for that matter, the entire campaign--can be a little self-serious at times. On the other hand, Obama actually has a pretty good sense of humor, and, more importantly, he can be amusingly self-deprecating." Thus, Scheiber says, Obama "shouldn't have trouble" shaking off the notion that he's humorless. He adds, however, that the (related) charge of "elitism" is "less fair, more damaging, and potentially harder to shake."
Isn't this the sort of unsupported character judgment that conservatives have spent the last eight years criticizing liberals for making about Bush? (Bush is "stupid," Bush is "evil," etc.) Of course, if the good professor has first-hand personal knowledge of Obama's alleged humorlessness and self-importance, that would be another matter. But if he's judging based on public appearances, wouldn't it be better to say that Obama appears humorless and full of himself, rather than presuming to know what lies inside the man's head, heart and/or soul? A fine distinction, maybe, but one that I think is important for a civil political discourse.
Better yet, wouldn't it be more productive and relevant to focus on actual substantive disagreements with Obama, rather than engaging in cheap shots and attacks on the unknowable inner reaches of the man's character, and generally playing into the GOP's attempt to turn him into a caricature? I thought high-minded conservatives like Glenn wanted to move the national discourse away from that sort of thing.
P.S. TNR's Noam Scheiber writes: "No question Obama--and, for that matter, the entire campaign--can be a little self-serious at times. On the other hand, Obama actually has a pretty good sense of humor, and, more importantly, he can be amusingly self-deprecating." Thus, Scheiber says, Obama "shouldn't have trouble" shaking off the notion that he's humorless. He adds, however, that the (related) charge of "elitism" is "less fair, more damaging, and potentially harder to shake."
posted by Brendan Loy at
7/16/2008 12:50:00 PM
