Bravo! I couldn't agree more.

This is IMO precisely why it's a mistake to see the ultimate failure of the Clinton campaign as a blow for feminism or women's rights. Like Thatcher before her, much of her candidacy (at least of late) has been predicated on the same type of "leadership requires a swinging dick, and mine swings just as much as theirs" narrative that the Repubs have managed to parlay into so much power, and so much failure. A validation of that type of Neanderthal mythos is the last thing that humanity needs right now.

Sadly, many many people still kinda dig the Neanderthal. And they are not just Republicans, and they are not just male.

Eloquently stated, Ezra. Webb's popularity among the TNR crowd is, to me, a clear symptom of the Democratic Party's reflexive defeatism. You'd think they'd have learned after Dukakis, but apparently not Hillary Three-Testicle Clinton and her acolytes.

[Petey]

How typical of our Highly Esteemed Health Care Blogger to slobber all over Obama's transformative 'politics' while totally ignoring his betrayal of working class Americans by leaving them out of his half-assed healthcare 'reform.' Way to do the bidding of your GE corporate overlords, scumbag!

[/Petey]

This myclip...

Progressivism ....needs to make its own rules
[It]can't prosper when politics is played under [their] rules.
Barack Obama's effort to do exactly that has been,
by far, the most exciting element of his campaign.
He's...been making his own rules.

I don't know if I agree with the solution, but I do agree that no Democrat should be trying to play by the rules set up by the Republicans. That's something everyone who cares about this country shouold agree with regardless of whether they support Obama or not. To that degree, they should endorse what you are saying here. They won't. but they should.

You're half right. Democrats should not accept the right-wing definition of "tough" but they should indeed be tough. Real tough, not fake tough like the Republicans are. Real toughness is fighting for your beliefs and not being cowed by the opposition. Obama sticking to his gas tax position and his "meeting with the enemy" is a sign of toughness. He's not afraid to stand up for what he believes in (in those particular cases).

By buying into the right-wing definition of toughness we do indeed lose. It's the conservative Democrats like Hillary or Joe Lieberman that want to accept the right-wing definition of tough which would kill the party.

It's an important distinction. A tough Democrat would not let the Republicans and conservative Democrats define toughness. I want a real tough candidate. Not a fake tough candidate.

Acutally, the more I think of it, the whole premise of your post actually kind of reeks of wimpiuness. You have let the opposition define toughness. Democrats should be tough. They just shouldn't be belligerent simpleton bullies, like the Republicans and Joe Lieberman.

I agree.
Also, it would be a bit weird to have two (recently elected) senators on the ticket. It would make the ticket too senatorial, too Washingtonian for someone who is arguing that it's time to change Washington.

Yes, Obama's walkback to "preparations, though not preconditions!" Tough stuff!

His abandonment of "I stopped wearing the flag pin because it was a cheap gesture" to "sometimes I wear it, sometimes not" to WEARING IT. Tough!

His craven pretending to be a paleocon protectionist on trade: Tough!

His use of his wife as a surrogate and then his accusing his opponents of being nasty for questioning the things she says: Tough!

His claiming McCain voted against the veterans bill for "partisan political reasons" and then denying he questioned his motives: Tough!

He really is a marvelous new kind of politician, devoid of the cynicism and doubletalk of the Clintons and those darned Republicans.

I'm for Richardson or Sebelius by the way (and for Gore, if he were a realistic option).

I don't accept the premise--often expressed by "creative class" pundits (hee, hee)--that Dems have to sell their souls to win the votes of the white working class. All they have to do is push economic populism. I'm interested (though not all that interested) in Webb as VP because he calls economic inequality the country's greatest problem. His machoness is merely a bonus.

"How typical of our Highly Esteemed Health Care Blogger to slobber all over Obama's transformative 'politics' while totally ignoring his betrayal of working class Americans by leaving them out of his half-assed healthcare 'reform.' Way to do the bidding of your GE corporate overlords, scumbag!"

But Ezra has been so clear about the fact that working class Americans have no place in "Ezra's Democratic Party".

Why should he care about working class Americans? After all, working class Americans aren't going to employ Ezra over the next couple of decades.

Ezra knows which side of the bread his butter is on.

"Come back Petey, we miss U!"

I'm not really sure why I should regularly comment and add value to Ezra's fraudulent enterprise here. He's only out for himself, so why should folks be helping him?

While I think it is very cute that liberals don't want to play by the rules that they "Republicans set" for them, I think there is credence to the idea.

Many liberals for whom the general election losses seem confounding, I think, often try to wish away the world they live in.

Whether you like it or not, personal attributes figure prominently in the mind of most voters. Policy wonks and internet bloggers sometimes forget that most of the voting public neither thinks like them nor resembles them.

Furthermore, the problem with the Democrats list of recent presidential nominees was there inability (real or perceived) to connect with the public or combat the silly attacks on their policies and character.

We cannot pretend we dont live in a hypermasculine culture. But more importantly, it is necessary for the Democratic nominee to swiftly and steadfastly confront the republican slime machine.

Burrowing a whole in the ground and refusing to participate because you dont like the rules is not effective. Further, it posits an unreal expectation that we can "change" the political landscape by just refusing its current contours. Not realistic.

While I think there are many fine candidates, Jim Webb offers much of what Obama needs in a candidate. Just because you believe picking him "plays into the Republicans game" should not disqualify him. America is a culturally conservative country in which people dont always vote on practical policy lines--whether that is a creation of the media or someone else is beyond the scope of this discussion. So it is of vital importance that liberalism stops being afraid of being mean and truthful. I think that is what Jim Webb does.

I'm interested in your prospect piece. I just finished my dissertation on congressional primaries, and controlling for other factors gender was a mild advantage in some situations, and certainly not a penalty.

And let me add: David Minzer's point is exactly what I mean.

Aggressive populism is the antidote to republican militarism. My support for Webb, or any VP candidate for that matter, is that they be aggressive/tough on economic issues.

It is often lost on people that although Webb is a military man, he is among the most ardent, and articulate, politicians on our economic woes. His opening salvo in the Wall Street Journal on economics, and his recent reframing of the whole white Appalachia phenomenon is much more effective than anything the other candidates bring. I'm sorry, but just getting another VP that speaks to the niceties of democratic policy is not going to do much of anything.

Bill Richardson and Sebelius sound good on paper to the DC crowd, but neither of them are forceful spokesmen for democratic policies.

Um, "daywalker"?

Yeah, I want to ditto Jeff and David. There is not reason why we have to accept the world on the GOP's terms. That doesn't mean that there aren't other rules other than those Obama are laying out either. Certainly, as far as Webb represents the sort of economic populism that he expoused in his op eds after winning office, is the degree to which he would be a good VP on the ticket. I just don't think the rah-rah military faux patrotism is the basis for how we should win. It's not the real world to think that we can win by beating another team playing by their rules. It's also not certain that these are the rules we have to play by anymore. The last 30 years aren't a benchmark for the next 30 because the GOP rules are now in decline in the American voters mindset.

Please stop using "More..." !!

Honestly, words fail me at the incoherence of this post; the approach to gender roles and expectations as they relate to politics is so muddled here, and the final conclusion so daft - it amounts to "what a great success for feminism that the woman has been rejected in favor of the guy who's not a woman!" - that the mind reels.

It's certainly the case that the GOP has, in recent years adopted a "pansies and pantywaists" approach to denigrating liberal men as weak and soft; I think people genuinely underestimate how keenly men feel such feminizing comments or how defensive they get in response. And I think the perceptions of being seen as soft, weak, or effeminate actually have everything to do with the hurdles women candidates face with male voters. That's the reason why the "I would vote for a woman, just not Hillary" argument is so weak - as long as the woman is a hypothetical one, we're theoretically fine with a woman candidate; but an actual woman, and this is all much more real, and direct.

I don't think hyper-masculine displays - hunting, swearing, what have you - or the lack thereof tell us that Obama's doing gender roles differently; I think the big difference all along in this race has been that Obama is running against a woman first, and secondly against McCain in the fall. We'll see what happens when "who's more guy-ish" is more up front in the debate. But I think what's lurking undiscussed here is the sexism that's been idling along in this race, in which Obama doesn't have to be more guy-ish, mainly because he's the only guy. And, in the end, it's better to be the guy... than to be the woman.

I'm sure others have written about the subject well, but I have a hunch that part of Obama's ability to pull off a non-tough style has to do with being a black man.

Everything about the tough-boy image is a WHITE MALE thing. Barack gets out of that box.

I have found that a lot of the right wing males are closeted. They mistake bad grades in school for toughness. Witness the folksy but dim old warmonger McCain hugging the stumbling tongue tied Dubya.

Props for using "dudelier," Ezra.

Can we at least note for a minute the absurdity of the GOP posing as the party of "masculinity." Only if masculintiy is defined as being a loud mouthed doughboy chickenhawk closet case. Who in the right wing hierarchy is an exemplar of masculinity? Commander Codpiece -- the AWOL Cheerleader? Deferment Dick? McConnell? Boehner? Limbaugh? Ha! Gingrich? Triple ha! I guess McCain if he weren't a disabled geriatric dwarf.

I think Obama looks like he could kick the crap out of all of them -- plus, he has a very cool, masculine assurance.

The problem with not wanting to play by the Republican rules is that Republicans own the media - literally own it, as stockholders - and the corporate bosses' direction on what stories to run and how to spin them flows downhill and into America's TV sets. (Greenwald has a recent post on this, if you haven't seen it already.)

The Awful Debate (there have been lots of awful debates, but you probably still know which *particularly* awful one I mean) is a good example of this. Politics *is* an away game for Democrats, because the corporate-owned media is both the playing field, and when they feel like it, the referee.

Ezra leads the cheers as the Democratic Party continues its transformation into the Rockefeller Republican Party.

I thought the whole idea of "progressive" was replacing interest group liberalism with a broad based party that had a consistent goal - social justice - and united economic liberals and social liberals together in pursuit of said goal.

goodbye Humphrey, hello Nixon and chis:

You are both correct. I think it is a bit silly that "progressivism," the new word of well-heeled liberals, is deviating from liberalism core of economics, to an expanded version of interest group liberalism, as hello Nixon astutely put it.

A democratic party that is not based on shared economic issues is long term loser. It's reminiscent of clintonism, which moved to the center on economic issues. Unfortunately, I see Obamaism as similar policy agenda, without with a less slash and burn political agenda.

If the democrats want to win, be macho on what is ours to be macho on, economics. Some 80 percent of the American public is not part of,nor a beneficiary of, the capital gains/free trade/financialization of the American economy. Yet american liberalism, or is progressivism, wishes to merely tinker around on these issues, rather giving voice to less effective (and important) identity politics.

"Daywalker".

You know, I completely get the metaphor. And agree completely.

Really, when it comes to the ReThuglicans - don't all us males want to be the daywalker?

Kick the Repub asses - on THEIR terms - smack them down on Hardball, softball - any ol' ball will do.

At any rate, good insight - describes one reason why I like Webb, at least.

Don't know if that insight alone - most of us angry liberal blogger men are daywalkers in our dreams - makes the next jump - don't put him on the ticket - electorally, politically, true though.

An equation of toughness = masculinity - how typical! Guess what - we do want a president who can face down the enemy - but it doesn't take a man, black or white, to do that.

The claim by certain Obama supporters that women, particularly women over 55, are acting out of childish resentment by threatening not to vote for Obama in November, and the concomitant claim that these women are merely indulging their fantasies of revenge for the rejection of a woman nominee in a fit of feminist pique, is an example of the condescending and patronizing attitude these mostly male, mostly 30-something Obama cultists, have demonstrated throughout this Democratic nominating process toward women, particularly older women. These claims have been perpetrated against so-called white working men and women as well, although this time the fit of pique is purportedly instigated by racism, not sexism.

Most of these older women (including myself) and white working class people have been loyal Democrats throughout their lives. Most of them want a Democrat in the White House in January 2009. Many of them, particularly women, have legitimate concerns that the ongoing Democratic nominating campaign has reflected a latent and powerful sexism in American society, as expressed most emphatically and perniciously by the cable media, thought to have been eradicated years ago, especially among the members of the “progressive” movement. Some of the members of the white working class may have concerns that the charges of racism that were intentionally inflicted and inflamed by the Obama campaign, and the truly patronizing comments of Obama in San Francisco regarding the “bitterness” of those people, reflect an insensitivity and inability of Obama to truly and adequately represent all of the American people.

We’ve been made all too aware that sexism in 2008 is still the central core of “otherness”, even among progressives, and that the patriarchy, albeit in a very different form from its existence in the 1960s and prior decades, is alive and well in 30-something males and beyond. This is a fight that must be fought, but we also recognize that it is not the raison d’etre of the arguments against Obama. It’s a different fight for another day.

Notwithstanding all of these concerns (about sexism and a myopic view of working class American lives), I don’t believe that they constitute the refusal of many to vote for Obama in the general election. I think the refusal to vote for Obama is based on an evaluation of Obama himself, an evaluation that finds him wanting in experience, in character, in depth of knowledge (of history among other relevant matters), as well as an instinctive reaction to his hypocritical pretensions to have risen above politics while using some of the dirtiest political tricks in the book (charges of racism among the most disgusting).

We must weigh whether we want this particular Democrat in the oval office or whether we can live with a Democratic congress and four years of a mostly impotent Republican president. Can we trust our lives, our safety, our economy, to a man who knows nothing and cannot admit that he knows nothing. Haven’t we been down this road before?

CHRISTIAN SIRIANO FRO PRESIDENT

We need someone fierce in the White House.

Tough is not a Republican game and it's not a game that women can't win. Americans have been turned off by Democrats for the past 30 years because Republicans have claimed the high ground and Democrats, self-identifying as the Mommy Party, have let them get away with it. Progressives have got to reclaim tough.

Women heads of government, like Margaret Thatcher, have succeeded by being "hypermasculine." Hillary Clinton's campaign failed for a variety of reasons but, interestingly, she did better when she started knocking back boilermakers in redneck bars and playing tough: she got the votes of working class men as well as women. What this shows is that, contrary to the received wisdom, Americans, including American men, are not universally averse to tough ladies.

Democrats have got to reclaim tough. And feminists have got to send the message loud and clear that feminism is not about valuing "feminine" qualities but about enabling women to be tough and supporting tough ladies. I'd have loved to see a ticket with Clinton and Webb, but Obama/Webb will do just fine. We need to get in touch with our inner Godzilla. Soft sucks.

Excellent post. I like elements of Webb, but I've been wary of his past and his acquiesence to Bush on spying, etc.

We have to stop kow-towing to people with power issues.

I know this wasn't supposed to be about Webb, but about the wrong reasons for wanting Webb as vp. But that doesn't mean there aren't some right ones, such as his excellent criminal justice positions. I think I like him better in the Senate, though. Passing GI Bills and all.

"self-identifying as the Mommy Party."

This is wrong in at least three ways.

Excellent comment, virtual portal!

VirtualPortal,

If I'm understanding your arguments against Obama, one, he has a "myopic" view of the white working class because of a single set of comments from Obama. You advance this perspective, then disregard it as a reason to vote against Obama. You don't put forth any evidence that Obama's "insensitivity" shows up in his proposed policies, only in these comments. At the same time, you bring up "sexism" as a "concern" but also dismiss it as a reason to vote against Obama.
After these diversions, you allege that Obama is "in experience, in character, in depth of knowledge (of history among other relevant matters)". You don't set any standards for these opinions (two full terms in the Senate for experience?, willingness to admit an error for character - a flaw Hillary Clinton shares with our current president?, or an ability to analyze the possible outcomes of a war in Iraq before the war is approved for depth of knowledge in history?). It's unfortunate that Obama's character and policies are so unknown to you or unperceivable by you that McCain is an acceptable substitute for Hillary Clinton in your eyes. To seriously propose that Obama
"knows nothing and cannot admit that he knows nothing" is an amazing statement from a self-identified Democrat. I only hope that other voters take a closer look at Obama and McCain before making their choices.

Democrats could certainly out tough Republican chickenhawks and corporatists. Trade in the Ezra Klein's for younger vrsions of Jim Webbs (or Wellstones, Feingolds, Mikulskis, and Lewises)

What Klein is arguing is he doesn't think the Democratic Party should do this. Maybe he is correct but Democrats could certainly replace a few lawyers with laborers and wonks with workers when it comes to public adcovacy.

Can Obama create a new dynamic for progressivism where toughness isn't an issue and prosper. Perhaps, but some segment of the party prefers tough and is going with Clinton because 'she's a fighter.' I am a bit skeptical since progressivism heyday was when the Democratic Party was the tough party - 1932 to 1968.

To my mind, the goal shouldn't be to replace toughness/fighting for you/ strength with something else but create an era when toughness isn't code for masculinity and militarism.
(fighting Dems needs to be about sticking up for the underdog not military service)

Democrats need to be tough and smart, where Republicans have been tough, but dumb.

To out-tough the Republicans without outsmarting them, is to repeat the Kerry campaign. Kerry's all war hero, all the time campaign persona was irritating enough in its own right, but he couldn't even eat a Philly cheese steak without looking fake.

Weboy said it best. Ya'll are missing the roles that sexism and gender identity played in this primary season. The fact that the blogosphere, punditry, MSM, NPR, and many others has missed that, makes me absolutely positive that I will not see a woman in the Whitehouse in my lifetime. Luckily, I live in a deep blue state, so I can afford to just vote Green in November.

Obama "changed the rules of the game"?

So you don't think this wonkish love affair with him has anything to do with the "hyper-masculinity" of his being a wonk who's also a tall black dude who plays basketball - or the mythic "cool" qualities of black men?

This wouldn't have anything to do with the fact that so many bloggers identify with him, right?

If he'd quoted Jerome Kern instead of Jay Z, that would have had the same effect, I'm sure.

Toast- 'daywalker' is a phrase from the Blade movies describing Blade, who is a vampire who can walk by day. It's used, I believe, here to describe Webb as being one of a kind/unique; not to describe him as a hybrid-human vampire fighting against demons. At least, that's my assumption.

The push to inject, into Obama's ticket -- and in the person of Jim Webb -- a heavy dose of white, Southern, thick-necked, barrel-chested, cigar-chewing, military-grade testerone is an expression of sexism and homophobia against Obama himself -- the only-rarely-spoken conventional wisdom being that Obama is not enough of a "manly man" to get elected against McCain, without a veep like Webb.

It's as if to say: "We really like Barack's message. If only he were more of a guy."

But neither Barack nor his message need "manning up." And no self-respecting Democrat should want to see Barack elected, on the back of sexist and homophobic prejudice.

That would be an abdication of the politics of hope -- not the affrmation of it.

Gut-level thinking: Jim Webb has served his country in combat, identifies strongly with me and many of my compatriots who have made a similar choice, and he speaks eloquently and forcefully on behalf of both our interests and enduring cultural legacy. Jim Webb’s appeals to veterans at an almost primordial level, and this appeal translates well also to law enforcement, firefighters and, generally, working class Americans all over the country, especially, it would appear, along Appalachia.

Although, as progressives, we like to flatter ourselves as being concerned primarily with the substance of policy positions, it’s inescapable that a large majority of the electorate’s behavior can be modeled on the basis of self-identity. There’s a case to be made about whether the groups that Jim Webb appeals to are the ones that activists and the party should focus on as the basis of an enduring coalition (as opposed to, say, white working-class women), but there’s no doubt that (a) we are weaker in these demographics than should be the case and (b) Jim Webb can help to begin to rectify this imbalance (both at the election-day turnout and symbolic, with the prospect of compound gains for the next cycle).

Perhaps the fact that Jim Webb is sui generis is more an indictment of the current composition of the Democratic party than a case to be made against his elevation to the VP spot. We think of ourselves as the party of the working and middle class; let’s make a serious effort to bring these voters home.

While I very much agree with Ezra's post, there's no doubt in my mind that we're talking about a major cultural shift here. And that cultural shift needs to take place in the national media. The reality is that the sexism that Hillary was subjected to is the same sexism that Obama continues to be subjected to. In Obama's case, it has resulted in pundits, such as Joe Scarborough, criticizing what they perceive to be Obama's effeminate bowling style. Maureen Dowd's quien es mas macho-style NYT columns. And reporters persistence in pushing the myth that Obama's so girlie he thinks people hunt with six-shooters. In trying to out-Hemingway each other, these members of the media--men and women alike--are ensconced in a system that simply refuses to abandon a 1950's-era attitude toward gender roles. Without overthrowing (or undermining) that entire system, we're going to have more Hillarys downing shots and threatening to obliterate Iran just to get elected. Because the perception is that, to get votes, you need to media on your side. And, on the national level, the establishment press is still just an old boys network.

"If he'd quoted Jerome Kern instead of Jay Z, that would have had the same effect, I'm sure."

That's why he should quote Brecht and Weill.

"Now those among you full of pious teaching
Who teach us to renounce the major sins
should know before you do your heavy preaching
our middle's empty
there it all begins
Your vices and our virtues are so dear to you
So learn the simple truth from this our song
wherever you aspire
whatever you may do
first feed the face
and then talk right and wrong
For even honest folk
May act like sinners
unless they've had their customary dinners.
What keeps a man alive?
What keeps a man alive
He lives on others
He likes to taste them first then eat them whole if he can
Forgets that they're supposed to be his brothers
That he himself
Was ever called a man
Remember if you wish to stay alive
For once do something bad and you'll survive
You warn us with appropriate caresses
That virtue humble virtue always wins
Now please before your moral verve oppresses
Our middle's empty there it all begins
Oh you who don't in our despair and your desire
may learn the simple truth from this our song
whatever you may do whatever you aspire
first feed the face and then talk right and wrong
for even saintly folk may act like sinners
unless they've had their customary dinners
What keeps a man alive?
What keeps a man alive
He lives on others
He likes to taste them first then eat them whole if he can
Forgets that they're supposed to be his brothers
That he himself was ever called a man
Remember if you wish to stay alive
For once do something bad and you'll survive"

slag--

The particular strain of sexism that Obama is being subjected to by the media -- and that also is embodied in the push for Webb as Obama's VP -- has a more pertinent name:

Homophobia.

We have to start calling this what it is.

John-
I do agree that homophobia is part of it. I'm never sure which one of those comes first--sexism or homophobia. They seem to me to be so intimately connected.

"Perhaps the fact that Jim Webb is sui generis is more an indictment of the current composition of the Democratic party than a case to be made against his elevation to the VP spot. We think of ourselves as the party of the working and middle class; let’s make a serious effort to bring these voters home."

Bravo! Excellent summation of the current dilemma of the Democratic party. Are we the party of the working class? If so, why don't we act like it instead of hiding from it.

jeff-
I'm concerned by your presumption that being the party of the working class means being the party of the knuckle-dragging class. Wanting to take the He-Man out of our image of the presidency has nothing to do with economic populism. The fact that people conflate these things is part of the problem that Ezra's post is intended to address since that conflation is both a hindrance to Democrats as well as a danger for this country.

"knuckle-dragging class."

What a ridiculous and mean-spirited statement. Is this what modern day liberalism is? If so, I most certainly have little place in this sphere.

If you read my previous posts--which you probably did not--my point was that Webb is a fierce spokesmen for Democratic policies and values. Policies and values which I believe are about improving peoples' lives. This is most often done by improving their ability to purchase goods and resources--that is, through economic leveling. In no way is this about a fetishizing masculine qualities. Rather, it is about the importance of Democratic politicians clearly and forcefully expressing our views. This is the major sticking point of our party. We have great policies and poor, poll tested, and weak spokesmen(yes, weak--is that term now misogynistic in the "progressive" lexicon). That has nothing to do with masculinity. Its a matter of effectively articulating our view to the populace.

If you prefer to consider working class people "knuckle dragers," you are welcome to spin yourself in a tizzy over identity politics and whether my support for Jim Webb's candidacy is matter of homophobia, anti-feminism, racism or some combination thereof.

Me, im much less concerned about pleasing identity concerns than improving the majority of American's lives.

Jeff
spokesman
knuckle draggers party 2008

Synergy on the Democratic ticket is key to winning this election.

The election is going to be won in the middle, that great white hump of voters that range from moderate Republicans to independents to conservative Democrats. And it’s going to be won among that demographic in the key swing states of Wisconsin, Michigan, Ohio, Pennsylvania and Virginia.

And, ummm, we're kind of in the middle of two wars that are literally and figuratively bleeding this country dry.

Our defense budget is larger than all the other defense budgets of the world combined.

The key element of Senator McCain's persona, the one most voters immediately identify with him, is war hero.

Senator Obama, though having many, many great and good attributes, has zero experience of and apparently zero interest in things military.

When he substituted for Senator Kennedy at the Wesleyan commencement, he called on the graduates to serve their country.

"It's because you have an obligation to yourself, because our individual salvation depends on our collective salvation," Mr. Obama said. "Because it's only when you hitch your wagon to something larger than yourself that you realize your true potential ... "

He never once mentioned or referenced military service.

And it was Memorial Day weekend.

Obama/Webb ‘08

Obama's a wussy
most of Obama's supporters are wussies
Of course they want to wussify the Democratic Party.
I was born fightin' so aint gonna let that happen
Will soon be kickin' Ezra Klein (wussy name) and James Fallows assess

Obama flees his church; film at 11:00.

I think the article and a lot of the comments here underestimate the role of strength and toughness in the American narrative. Despite the 'wrong track' numbers and the president's history of empty saber-rattling, the notions of strength and toughness are still a very big part of the American psyche.

Speaking VERY generally, Americans view themselves as fighters, as hard workers, as people who value physical strength. We idealize coal miners, Marines, firefighters, ranchers and farmers. Football is still our favorite sport.

McCain's narrative is much more compelling for a lot of folks in this regard. His personal toughness is beyond reproach, and I think his established image does much to make people feel comfortable with him and his message. Relative to McCain, Obama is new on the scene. His narrative (growing up overseas, living and working in black urban communities) isn't one that many Americans can easily identify with, whereas McCain's military service gets his foot in the door. Obama is thus extremely vulnerable to being defined by the right. At the same time, Obama faces the prospect of having to explode one narrative and replace it with another as he attempts to re-define McCain for the American people.

There's no way this is going to be as easy for Obama as folks might think it should be.

Only if masculintiy is defined as being a loud mouthed doughboy chickenhawk closet case. Who in the right wing hierarchy is an exemplar of masculinity? Commander Codpiece the AWOL Cheerleader? Deferment Dick? McConnell?

supply vast kinds of styles handmade jewelry

http://www.fantastic-replica.net

dfg http://www.fantastic-replica.net

this is a great article! fotografia slubna bielsko katowice krakow

to become one of the faces of the party --China Wholesale is about the electoral benefit of a hyper masculine, effortlessly tough, culturally conservative (seeming) candidate who can win back those Reagan Democrats and white males.

Software development
Data collection