MoDo complains Obama had no Fury

[PolNewf]

And tears McCain, Palin, Bush and even Kissinger down while making her case for an Obama wrist slapping.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/28/opinion/28dowd.html?ref=opinion

[BlooInBloo]

1. It's what MoDo does. Idiot DUers feel the same....

The correct view is this:

http://jamesfallows.theatlantic.com/archives/2008/09/on_strategy_and_tactics.php

"Obama would have pleased his base better if he had fought back more harshly in those 90 minutes -- cutting McCain off, delivering a similarly harsh closing judgment, using comparably hostile body language, and in general acting more like a combative House of Commons debater. Those would have been effective tactics minute by minute.

But Obama either figured out, or instinctively understood, that the real battle was to make himself seem comfortable, reasonable, responsible, well-versed, and in all ways "safe" and non-outsiderish to the audience just making up its mind about him. (And yes, of course, his being a young black man challenging an older white man complicated everything he did and said, which is why his most wittily aggressive debate performance was against another black man, Alan Keyes, in his 2004 Senate race.) The evidence of the polls suggests that he achieved exactly this strategic goal. He was the more "likeable," the more knowledgeable, the more temperate, etc. (Update: though from here on out he doesn't have to say "John is right..." anywhere near as often as he did last night.) .

For years and years, Democrats have wondered how their candidates could "win" the debates on logical points -- that is, tactics -- but lose the larger struggle because these seemed too aggressive, supercilious, cold-blooded, or whatever. To put it in tactical/strategic terms, Democrats have gotten used to winning battles and losing wars. Last night, the Democratic candidate showed a far keener grasp of this distinction than did the Republican who accused him of not understanding it."


Or, copycatting Fallows, this:
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/220315.php

[Laelth]

2. By necessity in the U.S.

An angry white man is labeled a progressive.
An angry black man is labeled a militant.

Obama kept his cool, but I have every reason to believe that righteous anger is just beneath the surface.

-Laelth