Why "it" really matters

[Tom Rinaldo]

"It" trampled on Obama's positive message and reinforced a negative one instead.

The fact that you likely know what "it" is that I am referring to merely underlines the point. The subliminal caption to the photos of Obama and Clinton seen "together" at the SOFU that will ultimately linger is: "On second thought, you are not likable enough Hillary". In politics this is called a self inflicted wound, and candidates who make too many of them tend to lose more elections than they win, and that is really why it matters. That's the big deal.

At the Nevada debate, when Barack Obama was asked about the alleged mean spirited comment he made about Hillary Clinton's likability at an earlier debate, Obama made a point to express regret over how it sounded. Clearly, he understood that his prior comment became a campaign liability:

"WILLIAMS: But another given was at the last televised debate, when you, in a comment directed to Senator Clinton, looked down and said, “You’re likable enough, Hillary.”

That caused Frank Rich to write, on the op-ed page of the New York Times, that it was “your most inhuman moment, to date.” And it clearly was a factor and added up.

Senator Obama, do you regret the comment, and comments like that, today?

OBAMA: Well, I absolutely regret it because that wasn’t how it was intended. I mean, folks were giving Hillary a hard time about likability. And my intention was to say, “I think you’re plenty likable.”

(LAUGHTER)

And it did not come out the way it was supposed to...."

http://64.233.169.104/search?q=cache:Lur8YD7DqBQJ:www.lasvegassun.com/news/2008/jan/15/debate-transcript/+%22Senator+Obama,+do+you+regret+the+comment,+and+comments+like+that,+today%22&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=2&gl=us

Now, through his own behavior at the SOTU address, intentionally or unintentionally, fairly or unfairly, Obama has given new life to a damaging old liability. Obama may write it all off as "gotcha journalism" but there is an old saying that rings true for many; "Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me."

The Obama campaign has issued an explanation for "the snub", probably the best one possible under the circumstances; Barack Obama attempted to handle a potentially awkward encounter by giving private space to Senator Kennedy and Senator Clinton to interact. It is plausible. Though I and others can find reasons to question the likelihood of that explanation telling all or even the most relevant part of the actual true story, I'll leave that aside. Let's assume there never was anything more to this incident than that, and that what actually happened has now been twisted beyond recognition in the telling.

Still, here is the bottom political line: For Obama not to realize the controversy it would kick up if he appeared to be avoiding contact with Clinton while she was shaking hands with everyone around him, including Ted Kennedy who had just endorsed him over Hillary, is a major political blunder. This wasn't like tripping over his words in a speech, this was basic. Hillary Clinton knew she likely would run into Barack Obama at the SOTU, and he sure as hell knew also. They both needed pre-plans for how they would handle that eventuality.

How Obama and Clinton interacted with each other was certain to be reported on. Had they both executed a small courtesy smile and hand shake, it would have been a small inconsequential toss in to the coverage of the night. At worse it would have been neutral. But Obama went out of his way to shake George Bush's hand, he should have known not to go out of his way to avoid shaking Clinton's. Press were everywhere and some of them no doubt were assigned to closely follow each of the presidential candidates during the entire event. That all was completely predictable.

If Obama's Plan A was to hope he somehow could avoid direct contact with Clinton without it being obvious that he was avoiding her, that plan was dead the moment he saw that she and Kennedy were greeting each other right next to him - he certainly was not oblivious to that. From that moment forward politically he should have known that the gracious AND EXPECTED thing to do would be to greet her also, and from that moment on, politically, it should have become his business to make sure that he did. Obama needed Plan B. If risking a perception of snubbing Clinton was always in his plans then his political instincts were sorely lacking. If he had no plan at all for that contingency then his political instincts were lacking even worse.

Obama just stepped on a full days worth of very positive media coverage coming from Ted Kennedy's endorsement of him and replaced it, at least in part, with a very sour seeming story instead. A candidate can't afford to do those things during a Presidential election.

But the problem for Obama with this incident goes deeper still then that. His campaign is fueled in part by the perception that he and only he can lead us to the promised land of a more unified America, out from the wilderness of constant divisive acrimony, partisan sniping, and petty political egos that so many Americans are so thoroughly fed up with. Perhaps he can make that a reality but for now it is only his image and his word that we have to go on to guess if Obama is up to that huge task. During that New Hampshire Debate, Obama's word took a hit when he spoke "you're likable enough Hillary". At the State of the Union Address Obama's image took a hit when photos showed him turning his back to Hillary Clinton.

The deepest problem for Obama is this. If he can not convince voters that he is able to rise above "petty political egos" with a rival within his own Democratic Party who agrees with him on almost every issue of substance, if the campaign that he is part of divides the Democratic Party more than it has been since before Bill Clinton got elected, how will Obama convince America that he can heal the bitterness that now divides Republicans from Democrats?

Obama set the standard himself, so it should be no surprise if ultimately he is the one most measured by it, and upon which his own political fortunes rest. It was just one night in a long political campaign, but it was not a good night for Barack Obama.

[DJ13]

1. another and another and another

:nopity:

[FrenchieCat]

2. A whole essay on "the handshake incident" from you, Tom!

That's unexpected.

I'm somewhat surprised!

I always thought you were above the petty politics, and the fact that you weren't there, and can't really "say" what happened exactly makes this amount of time of yours spent on illuminating others on why this matters to you seems beneath you.

Guess everything single little thing matters greatly to Tom Rinaldo after all, hey?

Does the matter that Hillary has a history of "snubbing" and not shaking hands greatly matters to you too, or do you give that a pass?

The relationship began to change when Mr. Obama began musing aloud about a presidential bid. The day he opened his exploratory committee, several Senate observers said, he extended his hand and said hello on the Senate floor. She breezed by him, offering a cool stare.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/07/us/politics/07rivals.html?_r=3&pagewanted=print&oref=slogin&oref=slogin&oref=slogin

This is the exact moment of the "handshake" that shook the world. Does it look like Barack was doing anything at all to you?


Hope you're not writing and extra long one on Why Ted Kennedy's endorsement of Barack doesn't really matter as much as a picture next.

As the wonderful writer that you are, it is sad to see you take up this much of your talent writing about occurences that you can't really vouch for and in the scheme of it all really don't matter. :eyes:

Face it! Obama is just really too uppity for his own good. He needs to shuffle and grovel his way to victory. Otherwise, he'll just look like a defiant and "arrogant" "perfumed" Prince. :(

[Yossariant]

8. Barack is hiding behind Teddy!

:rofl:

[Tom Rinaldo]

19. Frenchie I think to the extent that I was critical of Obama here

that relates to the political skills he displayed, and to me his political skills are an issue because Obama has never been tested in a high profile political campaign before. He previously ran for a State Legislative seat in Chicago, and then he ran for the U.S. Senate. But in the latter his real opponent in the race got knocked out at the last minuit because of a sex scandal and instead carpet bagger loser Allan Keyes became his token opposition instead. One of my concerns has ALWAYS been how Obama will handle an election race at the highest level possible, running for President against the Republican candidate.

Beyond that what I wrote is honest political commentary about WHY so many people outside of DU ARE paying attention to this "minor" campaign moment. I do not believe that you can't see how that is a valid point for commentary. Many Obama supporters have their own commentary about this up at DU now. I wrote about what WAS newsworthy to me, how this plays out in the campaign and why, and what it shows about the political skills of our candidates that is relevant.

I was not snarky. I did not call Obama juvenile. I do not believe that it matters much to our Republic whether those two people like or hate each other, and I know if Obama does not like Hillary personally he can still be an excellent candidate and/or President. But I am not surprised about this little moment getting noticed and talked about by so many, and I explained why that is for me.

[FrenchieCat]

23. Like I said, you have chosen how to view this yourself as though it matters.....hence your essay,

and you have apparently determined that the one photo you saw is what matters and what tells the tale. So you are not willing to give any benefit of the doubt which you would have surely done, had this been a reversed situation.

I'm not wrong on this Tom. It really shouldn't matter, and your essay apparently indicates that it does. That's the bottomline.

[Tom Rinaldo]

28. I saw at least 6 photos, and much of the nation saw many of them also

Other photos I have seen posted were not helpful to Obama either. I have also seen much of the media coverage. But you are skipping right past the point I tried to make. I did not argue about whether or not Obama had bad motives that night, or whether or not he intentionally or unintentionally showed disrespect to Hillary Clinton last night. When Obama expressed regret at the Nevada debate for his comment toward Clinton at the NH debate, he never for an instant was apologizing for actual "mean intentions", he was regretting that his comment allowed some to infer that he his feelings were Hillary were mean spirited. There is a big difference but that difference does not obscure the fact that Obama had something to "regret".

My point was that this was a self inflicted wound. It was no matter how you slice it.

[mrreowwr_kittty]

47. I wondered why everyone was paying attention to such a minor matter

As President Clinton having a sexual act performed on him in the Oval Office. By an intern 30 years his junior. Under his desk.

Now, we have his wife's supporters frothing in outrage over a missed handshake, claiming it proves that Obama is too indecorous for the job as POTUS.

The irony of that is staggering.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

3. It matters only to the extent people allow petty crap to take precedence over real issues.

I don't know what really happened. There's only a still photograph and the whole incident is subject to a variety of interpretations. But that's not the point. Even assuming Obama did intentionally avoid Hillary, WHO THE HELL CARES? Parsing the meaning of some petty spat that might not have even occurred* doesn't get us decent health care or housing for the poor or end the war. I've been hiding these stupid threads about this stupid incident all morning, and I'm really sick unto death of all the attention this media-inflated non-event has been given. If you want to spin it for Hillary, go ahead; it just encourages her opponents to pick up on the equally nasty stuff she and Bill have been pulling. Ultimately it doesn't mean a damn thing. We need to get over this kind of crap, NOW.

You've always been so rational and sensible. I'm a little surprised you allowed yourself to get suckered into this discussion at all.

*Update: Looks like all the spin is exactly that. From Politico: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0108/8178.html

"Or maybe, as Obama tried to convince the media today, it was an averted gaze at the exact second that Clinton sought to make peace with Kennedy.

“I was surprised by the reports this morning,” Obama said. “I was turning away because Claire asked me a question as Sen. Kennedy was reaching for her. Sen. Clinton and I have had very cordial relations on the floor and off the floor.”

“Claire” is Sen. Claire McCaskill (D-Mo.), who just happened to be traveling with him today as his campaign headed to Kansas and Missouri. She stood to his left Monday night – and behind him today, vouching for his version of the story.

“It was not a snub,” she said. “It was one of those accidents.”"

So can we PLEASE let this stupid thing die and get back to business?

[grantcart]

4. actually for 99% of the population they won't have a clue what you are talking about

Yesterday I ran into a dozen friends and they had heard about South Carolina and a couple had heard about Kennedy. None of them knew or understood what was happening in Florida and all of them are voting next tuesday but didn't really understand what Super Tuesday was about.

I think alot of us come in here to talk about these things because we are obsessed and "normal" people couldn't care less. All of these nuanced little events have no real impact in the real world. The people who are noticing and talking about it are already committed.

[Maven]

5. Well, if the watch the news at all today chances are they will.

CNN and MSNBC have been covering it on and off for the past couple of hours.

[mtnsnake]

6. The last two paragraphs pretty much paint the picture and it spells "hypocrisy"

[alteredstate]

7. Here ya go:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x4267482

[Jai4WKC08]

12. Tom's thread pre-dates the one you link to

By about four minutes. :o

[AtomicKitten]

9. The "snub" brouhaha is nonsense and meant to cover up the fact that Hillary applauded the surge.

I recall Obama proffering his hand to Hillary in Congress the day he announced his candidacy, and she most definitely buzzed him and THAT was a snub.

Obama was turned talking to someone else, no hand proffered, no hand refused, ergo no snub. As you can clearly see here:

[Dumak]

10. And here is another snub - by Hillary

http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/08/03/clinton-obama-tensions-spill-into-the-senate/

[AtomicKitten]

15. thanks for the link

That's exactly what I was referring to:

The day he opened his exploratory committee, several Senate observers said, he extended his hand and said hello on the Senate floor. She breezed by him, offering a cool stare.

Cheers.

[FrenchieCat]

11. So Clinton bringing up Jesse Jackson when not asked was perfectly acceptable to you,

but you write an entire dissertation on a handshake? :wow:

[mtnsnake]

14. Did Rinaldo say that? If he did, I must have missed it.

[Jai4WKC08]

16. He was asked

According to Congressman Meek, who was with Clinton during that interview, he was specifically asked. It was cut from the video and apparently the transcript.
http://www.cnn.com/video/#/video/politics/2008/01/28/intv.clinton.out.of.context.cnn

You of all people should know better than to trust the media, Frenchie. They will do ANYthing to make people believe whatever it is they want. Dividing the Democratic party by race is exactly what they want.

[FrenchieCat]

20. So in placing this much importance on a photo.........

is Tom any better?

You see, you made my point. One photo without context, and "it" matters.

I find that really beneath Tom. Reminds me of the politics of additional destruction. :(

[Jai4WKC08]

29. I see your point

But I also see Tom's. In politics, perception is OFTEN more important than reality. Almost always, in fact.

If the media are running this clip, then it will mean something. But just like Bill's Jesse Jackson remark, I think it mostly means that the media is creating racial division within our party... what better way to guarantee a Repub in the White House regardless of who gets our nomination?

Besides, you know Tom can write a tome at the drop of a hat. ;)

[Tom Rinaldo]

31. I closed this tome (and yep you are right) by saying this:

"It was just one night in a long political campaign, but it was not a good night for Barack Obama."

I do not think for a second that Obama is the only candidate who has had a bad night. Clinton has had her share of bad days and nights also. And folks here ALWAYS discuss those at the time as well. But it does so happen that last night IS the most recent night that there has been. And LOTS of people are writing about it today, and not just on DU. Rather than keep bumping twelve seperate DU threads on this with assorted comments, after a little while I decided instead to gather my thought regarding this incident onto one thread instead, and just say it all here.

[Tom Rinaldo]

25. The "dissertation" was on the potential fallout from the handshake and why

No one denies now, least of all Obama, that there was substantial "fallout" from his comment "you are likealbe enough Hillary" before.

As to Jackson and Clinton, I wrote this on Sunday at DU. You may agree or disagree, but I commented on it:


No, primary results are always more significant to me (than caucuses).

Look, I think Bill Clinton was foolish to mention Jackson when and how he did last night. For one thing it was the LAST thing HE should have noted in the glow of Obama's victory in SC given the recent history of this campaign.

But I understand how Hillary's campaign might legitimtely make note of Jackson winning SC before. It should have waited until today not last night, and it should have been a generic campaign spokesperson, not Bill Clinton, making the lower key observation. It is valid to point out that SC has it's own unique voting characteristics because Hillary Clinton has to make the case for why her poor showing last night should not be used to predict the results on Feb 5th. Momentum is part of the political equation, it can't be ignored. SC has a documented history of being highly receptive to Black candidates in the past, Jackson happens to be that documentation. It is true that Jackson won other states also in the past but SC is the first state that has voted this year that Jackson won in the past, so this is the first time that can up.

If Hillary wins New Mexico, the fact that she has strong support from the Hispanic community which is disproportionately represented in the first state to elect an Hispanic Governor, will likely be noted by her opponents.

But I do understand that Jessie Jackson, even though he ran as the rainbow candidate, was perceived more to be a civil rights candidate making sure that Blacks got a seat at the table, so seeming to equate Obama with Jackson can be seen to be "playing a race card". Bill Clinton should have known that. The observation he was trying to make should have been made in a much more dry manner by someone other than him."
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=132&topic_id=4228623#4229008

[tishaLA]

13. NOW I DON'T WANT TO HAVE A BEER WITH HIM!

oh how will he win when the RW narratives of his uppityness take hold?

[romana]

21. She did, he did

I don't post here often so I don't have a high post count (and you can make of that what you will-I have donated money to this site even though I don't post often). I am an avid reader of this website. I'd like to toss out an observation I've made about the back and forth between Obama and Clinton supporters.

Here's what I've observed:

The Rezko scandal surfaces for Obama. His supporters post a picture of the Clintons with Rezko.

Obama snubs Clinton at the SOTU. His supporters post a blog report of Clinton doing the same to Obama.

Clinton doesn't make a concession speech after SC. Her supporters respond to criticism of that by pointing out Obama's post-Nevada caucus behavior.

Clinton goes to Florida for a fundraiser. Her supporters post a news article about Obama doing the same in November.

I understand wanting to support your candidate, and put a good spin what they do and why they do it. But all this back and forth "She did, he did," ends up making them both look exactly the same. In the rush to defend your candidate, you end up making them look more indistinguishable than before by illustrating that they both do the same exact things or at least things that can be perceived that way if you want to put that particular spin on them. I think this doesn't help the primary process at all, as the whole point of the primary is to define the candidates, not paint them both with the same brush.

Just a thought.

[Generator]

43. Don't tell anyone

but I'm thinking he may be one of those-a wine drinker. I think that says VOLUMES. Can you have a beer with a wine drinker? I think it's a problem.

[featherman]

17. I agree with much of this essay... Obama should have been aware

that the press was watching and waiting intensely to see what type of an exchange the two would make after such a dramatic day. A short greeting and smiling exchange would have been the smart move even if it was true that at that moment he was distracted and talking to McCaskill. A good politician would have entered the room with a plan to make sure the smoothing over greeting occurred.

Rightly or wrongly, of such moments campaigns sometimes hinge and it was not a good moment for my guy.

I guess we'll see what legs it has and how deeply it penetrates the voting public in general rather than just the politically obsessed.

[OneGrassRoot]

18. Although "it" shouldn't matter, in today's world, it does...

Except for a handful, or unless it's displayed as an avatar or sig, I usually don't know who supports which candidate. So, I'm simply commenting on the OP and adding my two cents, directed toward both Clinton and Obama supporters.

This kind of little thing (handshake, laugh, crying, misstatements, etc., etc) SHOULDN'T matter if the news media was doing its job and supplying fact-filled information rather than sensational gossip-oriented fare. But, since that's what they're supplying and the electorate is, thus far, buying - and have been for quite a while now - IT MATTERS.

And, since both of these candidates seem to want to work within the system in order to get elected, and THEN hopefully change things in a positive direction, they know that THIS CRAP IS PART OF THE CURRENT SYSTEM.

It's not fair and it must be nearly impossible to walk this tightrope when every word you utter and every move you make (or don't make) is caught on tape, taken out of context, etc.

But my point here is that, since they choose to work within the system because, so it seems, that's the only way to be considered viable, they can't say they weren't aware of how it works. It's shallow and based on sound bites and still images.

Any experienced politician knows this. They both know this. So, if he/she repeatedly puts themselves in a position to have to defend such things, they're not playing the system very effectively. They're letting the system play THEM while at the same time talking about wanting to work together.

That may not have made sense, but it's because of the SHEER RIDICULOUS NATURE OF THE WAY OUR SYSTEM (media, government, EVERYTHING) works now, that I get upset when people even TRY to work within the system. The system sucks!!! Call it out and shout it from the rooftops while you have the platform - make people aware how ridiculous it is and how you want to discuss issues, not little miscues or misinterpretations.

If you don't call it out and expose it all for what it is in laymen's terms, you relegate yourself to having to work WITHIN that same system silently. So, you have to accept the shit that flies back in your face when working within that system isn't going so well.

:rant:

[featherman]

26. Well said

[ProSense]

22. Here is why it matters

Hillary's rudeness

[BeyondGeography]

24. This is embarrassing

for you.

[FrenchieCat]

27. My essay: Why "it" doesn't matter......

"It" doesn't matter because "it" is not how "it" happened.

[grantcart]

30. Have the Clinton supporters gotten this desperate?

[mathewsleep]

33. yes

yes they have. anything to make him look bad. she doesn't want to build herself up, she just wants to tare barack down.

[Tom Rinaldo]

34. Do you have any idea how cliched the atttempt to always call anything Clinton or her supporters

say "desperate" is?

I actually put up a poll about it on December 17th.

"Despperate Times Call for Desperate Measures"
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=132&topic_id=3852553

[grantcart]

40. do you have any idea how cliches get established

they are so often true they become cliches

the fact is this entire thread reaks of desperation. There is no substantive issue her at all.

What would make the cliche false is if the Clinton supporters were arguing something substantive and it was called desperate.

Congratulations on your poll. If Clinton supporters would stop acting with so much seething desperation it would releave the rest

of us the tedious motions of having to continually point it out.

[Tom Rinaldo]

42. Constant repetition is a good way. The same as the "Big Lie" theory.

The same as the smear against Liberals that got repeated until "Liberal" was a bad word. The same as how the Republican Noise machine orchestrates their favorite talking points each week, and Rudy repeats 9/11 ad naseum.

[grantcart]

53. the fact that you are going to such lengths to defend a meaningless

essay on a meaningless non handshake can in fact best be described by a single word

desperate.

Now yes it is true that you can go back and talk about Stalin or Hitler or Rove making repetitive statements until they become perceived as fact, but that has nothing to do with what an enormously tedious amount of effort that Clinton supporter have put forward in trying to make something out of nothing. The fact is you put the events of yesterday in juxtaposition i.e. the Kennedy endorsements versus a non handshake that appears not to have even not happened and the aroma wafting strong is that of desperation.

You should be more patient. She had a bad couple of days. Pick your battles on issues of substance and you won't have to humiliate yourself with tendentious arguments over trivialities.

[Scriptor Ignotus]

32. you used a lot of words to say very little

no offense. You're being very polite compared to some, but this seems like an immense amount of over-analysis to me. This whole incident will be mostly forgotten in two days.

[Tom Rinaldo]

36. We'll see. Hows that for being short? n/t

[Scriptor Ignotus]

48. better. lol. nt

[2rth2pwr]

35. Mark January 28th on your calendars as the day the wheels came off the

Obama Fever Bus.

[desi]

41. Marked!

"IT" does matter irregardless of Axelrod's spin.

[Adelante]

37. When Hillary was accused of not leaving a tip in Iowa

That would be an equivalent cheap shot major story. Wes wore a sweater in New Hampshire in the winter of 2003. A lot of words were written about that, too. That's how it goes, oh, well. Let's have 500 threads on it.

Barack didn't make a photo op hand shake. But Hillary made hers with Kennedy a foot away. And you know what? She could have shaken his hand just as easily, tapped him on the shoulder. What? It's beneath her? She's too fucking ladylike? I don't know why she didn't shake his hand and I don't pretend to know. He went out of his way to shake the president's hand at the SOTU. What a shock! Hillary went out of her way to stand up and applaud the surge at the SOTU. Obama sat. That is five hundred million times more important to me than who shakes whose hand.

[robbedvoter]

38. But the Wes sweater story WAS significant. It told me MSM wanted him out

and out they got him. With Obama, they want him as nominee - for the usual reasons they pick Dem nominees. This is a feeding frenzy, but it wasn't picked by any NYC tabloids - they're full of HILLARY SHUNNED" - Ted endorsement. But it still is the type of story that's more likely for people to people gossip about.

[Tom Rinaldo]

39. It's the "fool me once shame on you, fool me twice..." aspect that

carries some meaning for me. It is being spun to hell against Obama but it is a self inflicted wound. All he really needed to do was put on his check list for that night "Say hello to Hillary" and the news cycle would still be overwhelmingly positive to him today. He could have seen this coming and taken a simple preventive step to make sure he could not be dinged over this. And though I greatly respect the poster above, no, it would not have been "just as easy" for Hillary to tap someone who just turned his back on her (even if it was unintentional and coincidental but only "looked" intentional at the time) on the shoulder in order to get him to shake her hand.

[mrreowwr_kittty]

44. I cannot believe you blathered that many words about a non-handshake.

Look Tom, don't worry. It'll work. The media is on it, turning into the new "crying" moment. She'll win on Tuesday.

Isn't that all that matters?

[ErnestoG]

45. How many threas about a non-event are we going to suffer here?

Honest to god, this is STILL going on?

You people.

[Tom Rinaldo]

49. This is my only one. Unlike a lot of others n/t

[ErnestoG]

51. But you're still adding to the nonsense.

Just because you have only one dixiecup of gasoline to throw on the fire doesn't mean you're not helping it burn longer, eh?

[Lucinda]

46. Couldn't agree more. Very nicely stated Tom.

:thumbsup:

Despite the attack and divert attempts upthread, the reality is that Obama, in seconds, managed to shatter his own carefully crafted image last night.

[Tom Rinaldo]

50. Shatter is a much much stronger word than I would use.

But he didn't help it.

[Lucinda]

54. Seemed appropriate to me.

He's very carefully built up this image through rhetoric, in speech after speech, that he is the uniter. The one who can bridge the divide and make politics somehow better.

You can't put that moment last night back in the box. It's out there. And for some people who have been looking for actions to support his rhetoric, the illusion IS shattered.

[Beausoir]

52. Ouch.

That might be a bit of an overstatement, but he definitely didn't do himself any good.

And now, there are two official stories coming from Obama. One contradicts the other.

[FrenchieCat]

55. So what happens to "it" now, Tom?