11 Responses to “Accomplishments? Who Needs Accomplishments?”

1. OldNewEngland, on February 20th, 2008 at 12:02 pm Said:

   But…he’s not only the Word made flesh, he’s the triumph of word over flesh!! Come on, isn’t that presidential material??

2. clarkstooksbury, on February 20th, 2008 at 12:42 pm Said:

   His greatest accomplishments are not being Bush and not being Clinton.

3. Grumpy Old Man, on February 20th, 2008 at 1:01 pm Said:

   In my day, accomplishments were things ladies did, like tatting and playing mazurkas on the piano.

   As far as I know, none of the candidates has any such accomplishments.

   Why not a President who tats (as opposed to one with “tats”)?

4. JayGR, on February 20th, 2008 at 3:26 pm Said:

   A random poor on the spot state senator could be a good representative but so could someone like Hilzoy. You could walk on over and take a look…

5. Zorro, on February 20th, 2008 at 6:03 pm Said:

   It’s a ironic that Reihan, guest-blogging on Andrew Sullivan’s Atlantic blog would refer to Daniel Larison as America’s Greatest Political Blogger in the same breath (set of pixels?) that she rips Matthews a new one for not researching Clinton and Obama’s actual legislative records.

   She (?) then goes on to list 3 pages worth of Obama’s legislative accomplishments.

   Greatest blogger, indeed. In my opinion, sir, you are just another wingnut bag of hot air.

6. mike, on February 20th, 2008 at 9:08 pm Said:

   After the “accomplishments” of the past 7 years, it seems to me that we should yearn for a President with no accomplishments, in the hope that he will continue to accomplish nothing in office. All I want is a President who will be the next best thing to leaving the office vacant. The candidate who comes closest to that ideal will get my vote.

7. burntbeans, on February 20th, 2008 at 9:58 pm Said:

   i suppose you have never drawn a blank? true, he was there representing the obama campaign, and should have been ready for chris matthews to be an absolute douchebag, as he is wont to be; he has since explained that he just went blank, and cited several of obama’s legislative accomplishments (which are not insignificant, btw.)

8. OldNewEngland, on February 20th, 2008 at 11:41 pm Said:

   It’s not about drawing a blank, Burntbeans. That man is an Obama surrogate who knowingly went on national TV, clearly without any prep on the hard stuff, on the “beef.” Yes, Obama does have accomplishments: his ethics bill, for one, which was a major win and earned him applause in major news outlets. However, his campaign has put an outrageous emphasis on abstract concepts and vague platitudes, and it shows in the Texan’s bewilderment. When an Obama supporter is pressed to explain their loyalty, 9 times out of 10 they resort to pompous rhetorical flourishes, because that’s primarily what Obama is peddling. And it’s obvious why—his platform just isn’t that different than Hillary’s, who has the Clinton brand behind her, as well as the establishment and base support (though both of those groups are rapidly abandoning her cause).

9. OldNewEngland, on February 21st, 2008 at 12:02 am Said:

   What other candidate’s surrogate would “draw a blank” when it comes to legislative (or executive) accomplishments? Enough said.

10. Daniel Larison, on February 21st, 2008 at 8:00 am Said:

    That would be the right point to make. It’s related to the question of Obama’s policies. Obama has policies, and he seems well-informed, but many of his supporters seem to be drawn to him entirely independently of anything he has ever done or proposes to do. That was what I thought this clip highlighted. I am aware of Obama’s work on ethics reform, non-proliferation legislation with Lugar and so on, and I obviously don’t support him–would it be so hard for one of his actual political allies to get a few talking points about his legislative record ready? But this isn’t just a case of someone “blanking out”–it reflects on the campaign’s own methods. The campaign instructs its volunteers to describe why they have become Obama supporters without talking about policy or legislation. That is a problem, and it becomes a big one when one of his people goes on television.

    And, yes, we all agree that Matthews is abominable. This is certainly not an endorsement of him. However, no one could mistake Chris “Thrill Going Up My Leg” Matthews for anything other than an Obama sympathiser.

11. John, on February 21st, 2008 at 8:06 am Said:

    That is exactly right, Daniel. The relevant “Rorschach Test” was not “Obama’s inexperience vs. Matthews’s gasbaggery”, but “The vacuity of the Obama /supporters/ (which is after all what you were talking about in the first place) vs. said gasbaggery”. And it was an example of both, of course.

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.