... or is it just His Way?
ADDED: An emailer tells me that Obama's walk — which you saw here if you clicked the links — is a style of walking that is common in Hawaii. He says:
I don’t know if it’s a “stoner” stride, a “hang loose” surfer stride or just something else more particular to Hawaii.Well, we thought it was particular to Grandpappy Amos.
Posts
39 comments:
He's trying to show he's in shape.
Blog commenters here have been noticing his accent changes ever since 2008.
Here is one of your posts when people comment on his accent shifts, with Madison Man similarly saying what Beth did last night (he's got two accents - flat nasal Midwest one, and Pennsylvania for back home).
This, of course, proves that Obama is not acting, or a chameleon, or a big phony, he's just like everyone else, right?
Barry O. looks nothing like Walter Brennan.
wv: commi ... and that he is.
I can't believe it's my son up there...
If you listen carefully, I think Sid Vicious does it "his way" and changes the lyrics of My Way.
And now the end is near
And so I face the final curtain
You can't [unintelligible]
I'm not a queer
I'll state my case of which I'm certain...
If you can't tolerate the whole thing, I like how Sid ends the show.
It looks like he just passed through security at Newark Airport!
@Scott You've got to click the links, you know.
Separated at birth?
Sorry, I could not resist.
Now Barack can get Bill Clinton that cup of coffee...
If Barack is Sid and Michelle is Nancy...my money is on Michelle, knife or no knife.
Ah, ok. He doesn't sound like Walter Brennan either.
Have you ever noticed, if you affect a Southern accent while reading a Barry O. speech, it sounds like it was written by Orval Faubus?
wv: undepen
Why does the tag say "Obama and pop culture"? The only culture that pays any mind to such insignificant critiques of style is a snobby, royalist, out-of-touch, Toryesque, un-American bug up one's butt culture.
The generation you couldn't care less about accepts Obama's mannerisms (assuming they even notice) as natural and couldn't give a damn about the jealous need displayed here to fixate on such trivial things as if they constituted a relevant critique of anything.
Ann Althouse said...
@Scott You've got to click the links, you know.
You gotta be hunting for gnomes, if you be riding in the Gnome Mobile.
In the Gnome Mobile, the Gnome Mobile
Hunting for gnomes in the Gnome Mobile
Sooner or later we feel that we'll
Find where they are in the Gnome Mobile
As we ride along through the countryside
We're keeping our peepers open wide
Aw, Tédio Brasileira, Ann is just engaging in a little semantic deconstruction, what's wrong with that?
Ann is just engaging in a little semantic deconstruction, what's wrong with that?
You know, this little rejoinder reminds me a bit of the brilliant commentary posted on Analyze Glenn Reynold's Body Language:
You are entitled to infer whatever you like. One cannot help but do so, when one is confronted with a Glennograph, or an Annogram. There is absolutely no insinuation going on here, no attempt to imply anything negative, no actionable assertion. One simply infers, and passes on the implications of that inference. Who could find fault with that? Only the unforgivably partisan. AGRBL rises above the tired political bickering of yesteryear, and coldly documents the photographic facts.
Whoever came up with the term "postmodern conservative" was really on to something...
Tédio Brasileira, I think what really pisses you off is that Ann is having a laugh by mocking your idols.
And that is why your high dudgeon is so clownish and funny.
People forget Amos McCoy had a considerable hitch in his gait, even a limp.
That looseness in his arms is a little more like Jimmy Cagney coming down the White House staircase at the end of, "Yankee Doodle Dandy".
Which Barry sure ain't.
And that is why your high dudgeon is so clownish and funny.
What is funny is the way today's pomocons betray their decerebrated roots by posing individual and sectarian opinions as if they constituted human universals.
Tédio Brasileira, I think what really pisses you off is that Ann is having a laugh by mocking your idols.
What makes you think that I have an inherent problem with any humor pointed at Obama? It's the low quality of Ann's mockery that would make me laugh at her, if I weren't close to crying over the sad, sorry state of conservative critiques.
Remember, those of us not on the right aren't into an artificially inflated sense of uniformity, and certainly don't require one to promote the people we like. You are committing the perpetual conservative shortcoming of conflating your own indefensible impressions and thought processes with those held to by others.
"It's the low quality of Ann's mockery that would make me laugh at her, if I weren't close to crying over the sad, sorry state of conservative critiques."
It's actually quite selfless of you to be so concerned about the quality of Ann's critiques. With your diligence, perhaps this blog can achieve ISO 9001 certification.
Racism you ask? You are allowed to infer anything you like. Don't you know that Democrats can almost never be racist (unless they "go off the reservation if you will")...and Republican have to prove they are not.
You can help innoculate yourself if you are a "conservative" by throwing other conservatives under the bus. But even that is not foolproof.
Oh Baby Obama, now I have to denounce myself.
So we're on to coaching, I see. Why is it with you cons nowadays it always comes down to themes involving winning and losing? Isn't a reckoning with something approximating objective reality more important than winning political games at all costs?
I suspect the answer is no, to most of you it really isn't.
DBQ says the humor approximates a therapy, of sorts. I do hope that at some point all the laughing doesn't get in the way of some needed introspection every now and then.
Fred, if I ever had a charitable interpretation of Clinton's deplorable (and now more heavily documented) comments regarding Obama and Jesse Jackson, or Obama and getting coffee for higher-ups in that party, remind me to denounce myself as well.
What do you think Harry Reid intends with this gesture?
Ritmo you cracked me up with this one: "Why is it with you cons nowadays it always comes down to themes involving winning and losing?"
Because of course Democrats are just about doing the right thing... Damn, I have not laughed so hard in a while.
And oh yeah, Hildebeast's comments comparing herself to LBJ, contrasting that with an unfavorable comparison of Obama to MLK, also count in that analysis.
I'm glad the book by Jonathan Martin will be coming out. If it helps purge the more noxious and unscrupulous character traits out of the Democratic party (or any political party in America, for that matter - no matter how temporarily), so much the better.
This is a big part of the reason why so many of us had such a strong preference for Obama. Some day y'all will get it, too. Many on the right already did.
Because of course Democrats are just about doing the right thing... Damn
Quit lumping and read the 12:29 comment. And then read the 12:24 comment that you should have read while previewing your own little giggle.
Oh, and I see I was late in getting to it, but John McWhorter already provided the relevant analysis on Harry Reid.
Do read it sometime.
Ritmo, I read them both. I am still laughing.
Ritmo, I will give you the benefit of doubt that you are about doing the right thing. But the Democratic Party Leadership? Ahhhh not so much.
"This is a big part of the reason why so many of us had such a strong preference for Obama. Some day y'all will get it, too. Many on the right already did."
Narcissists living in a culture of narcissism elected one of their own. The United States is becoming a Latin American nation. How nice.
Fine, (and thanks, BTW). But then, who constitutes the Democratic party leadership? That's what was so rewarding about watching the struggle between the corrupt-beyond-belief Clinton faction and the rest who either signed on up front or hopelessly defected, one-by-one, to Obama during the primary.
Nowadays there are legitimate concerns about the degree to which Obama is knowingly - perhaps naively - engaging tyrants and corrupt Wall Street executives, in a bid to pacify them, while avoiding becoming a part of their corruption himself. But I don't think it was naive to embrace the tone he struck during the primary and general about this. Not at the time. Time will tell if he becomes an indelible part of that corruption and it ruins his presidency. But to the extent that the leadership now consists of less corruptible progressives like Dean and the followers who have signed on to Obama, I think that at the least, the more petty corruptions were dealt an initially heavy blow, and might be dealt another one after Obama hopefully regains his bearings in the wake of passing the most ambitious piece of legislation he wanted.
But in the meantime, I'll take the Martin book and savor its juicy details. The write-up in the New York observer was very well done, as well.
But Amanda Maracott says Reid's problem is he is an old white conservative! But in fairness Ms. Maracott, given his chances on reelection and losing a seat to the evil racist Republicans, the smart move is for Reid to follow Doddy Boy for greener post Senate pastures. Heck, he will still get paid.
And the Dems are not about winning--just doing the right thing. Waitress sandwich anyone?
The United States is becoming a Latin American nation.
So says someone who, in all likelihood, signed on the Rush Limbaugh/Laura Ingraham/Dick Cheney/FOX News strategy of endorsing Evita Pero-- sorry, Hillary Clinton herself.
Every party has people who only care about winning, and people who only care about ideology, as well as the more independent-minded types that they are able to attract, Fred.
In the Democrats' case, I suppose I should be more forgiving to you guys, though, because a large part of their recent successes were as much rooted in Republican failures as they were anything that Obama said or did. But the take-home lesson is that those failures were not political failures. They were failures in governing well in a more objective and non-partisan sense. Not everyone in the GOP gets that, yet.
Or in anything Howard Dean said or did. He should get some credit as well.
Sorry. New York Magazine is the one the 10-page piece on Martin's book, not New York Observer. Read it here. It's great. I fully endorse it.
Even the illustrations are good.
;-)
Ritmo: They were failures in governing well in a more objective and non-partisan sense. Not everyone in the GOP gets that, yet.
You are absolutely right in that regard. The GOP lost due to poor leadership. Which is why the Democrats are going to lose seats in House and Senate this time around. Same thing.
If the Democrats lose seats because doing a more aggressive job of taking on Wall Street would have led to faster growth and lower unemployment, then I wouldn't have much of a problem with it - especially if that's the message that Obama takes from it and it proves correct from an economic standpoint. But there's still a year left, anything can happen, and the incumbent party is expected to lose seats in the midterm, regardless. The question is, how much?
But as it stands, you can't be all that disenchanted with the White House signing on to pushing out Dodd in favor of Blumenthal, can you? Assuming that there's anything for us to agree on economically, I'd take it such a move would strike you the right way as well.
Some things are more incremental than others - especially when starting with unwieldly, loose coalitions.
"Taking on wall street" is not going to produce any jobs at all. It is going to feel great but it won't create jobs. After the AIG resort get away fiasco the president and others had great fun with lambasting the wall street guys for staying in lavish hotels. So people stopped going to lavish hotels in droves, particularly business guys who had fear of the government singling them out. Everybody felt great, right? Except for the employees at the hotels, the thousands of people the Democrats and populists claim to love. Those employees lost a lot of hours or their jobs altogether. In an industry where entry level people have a great chance of advancement without having college degrees. Good going. Way to take on Wall Street.
One last thing and then a late brunch calls:
Anyone diminishing the importance of Wall Street's corruption - especially from the right - needs to accept that growth is going to have to come from somewhere. And that puts them smack dab in the middle of implicitly defending the bubble economy. At that point, the argument becomes circuitous because those policies originated in bipartisan efforts, but the left can at least say they've quashed the infinitely corruptible Clintons and aren't afraid of going after their fellow-travelers.
So, where does growth come from? Obama acknowledges it's the private sector. You want to belittle any crackdown on Wall Street's disregard for any rules of the road? Fine. But people will want to invest in something. And as it stands right now, as always, tech (which is the only worthwhile thing America excels at - thankfully we still have something to be proud of) is still and for the foreseeable future will remain, at the forefront of all that. That involves an attention to all the energy that is required to fuel both new technology and the growth that results from it, and Obama is right to have spent so much time focusing his message on policies that allow our energy infrastructure to grow and develop in a way that will sustain us in the long-term.
So there.
Michael wrote:
"Taking on wall street" is not going to produce any jobs at all. It is going to feel great but it won't create jobs.
That's because Obama has an ideology, but not a PLAN. FDR had both.
That's why Roosevelt was able to revolutionise the American national landscape like he did, with programme after programme, based on a concerted attack on every capitalist component of American life.
And oh yeah, Hildebeast's comments comparing herself to LBJ, contrasting that with an unfavorable comparison of Obama to MLK, also count in that analysis.
She was comparing Obama to Jack Kennedy, not MLK. Kennedy inspired many but didn't accomplish a lot legislatively. LBJ didn't inspire many, but did accomplish a lot legislatively. Her remark was factually and historically correct.
I'm wondering if Garage's next comment to me will characterize Hildebeast's reference to Kennedy's assassination as "factually and historically correct", as well. No political significance to that one, either. Right?
Taking what the Clintons say at face value is always a bad bet.
Obama retorted that Clinton's original reference to JFK (if that was the case) didn't prevent MLK from making significant change.
Now is the wrong time in American politics to pretend that intentions don't matter. No matter how "factually and historically correct" any statement is, to feign bewilderment that such a thing (or anything) could be intended to legitimize and rubber stamp nefarious intent is just not worth taking seriously.
Post a Comment