Comments on: Style Over Substance

By: Eunomia » And He Has A Plan

Eunomia » And He Has A Plan — Thu, 26 Jun 2008 20:40:50 +0000

[...] This is very muchÂ in line with what I have been expecting for some time now.Â Given that McCain knows nothing, or next to nothing,Â about policyÂ (including his own positions!)Â and his biography is what has recommended him to voters all along, this strategy was almost guaranteed from the beginning.Â Furthermore, this approach seems to have some chance of working.Â [...]

By: Eunomia » Surprise! McCain Doesn’t Know What He’s Talking About

Eunomia » Surprise! McCain Doesn’t Know What He’s Talking About — Tue, 17 Jun 2008 17:21:33 +0000

[...] As I’ve noted before, McCain has to hope that policy knowledge is not a prerequisite to becoming President (Mr. Bush’sÂ election suggests that it is not), because compared to Obama it is he who will be playing the part of the confused naif.Â Â Â [...]

By: Little Boots

Little Boots — Sat, 07 Jun 2008 03:51:59 +0000

So well said, and so why I keep coming back to this blog that is so not what I normally agree with. Anyway, it’s great post, although Obama will clearly win and you should stop pretending otherwise.

By: conradg

conradg — Fri, 06 Jun 2008 23:34:07 +0000

Good point. In wondering what it is about both McCain and Hillary Clinton that allows them to get away with claims of substance when they have little to back it up, and why Obama seems vulnerable to the charge of lacking substance when he clearly does not, I’m thinking that it has something to do with the issue of pessimism vs. optimism. It seems to me that much of McCain’s “substance” boils down to being a fairly dour, pessimisstic guy, whereas Obama is clearly an upbeat, “hopeful” candidate. I think it terms of public perception, being downbeat and pessimistic is more easily associated with “substance”, whereas being optimistic is associated with being dreamy and insubstantial. The one area where McCain is the weakest is Iraq and the surge, where he is highly optimistic, and this seems to undermine his credibility. Likewise, the one area where Obama gains the most “substance” has been his essentially skeptical and pessimistic views of the Iraq invasion. It would seem that McCain has built a career, for the most part, out of the idea that being pessimistic about what government can do is the way to gain respect and a reputation as a man of experience and substance, which has of course led him in the exact opposite direction – to not bother to even study the issues in any depth, but instead merely to opt for whatever policies seem to require the least of government – tax cuts, minimal health care, etc. This often leaves McCain with no idea of what he’s talking about, but he still ends up seeming “substantial” because he’s basically pessimistic.

Curious of your own thoughts on this, being a pessimistic skeptic of government.

By: cfountain72

cfountain72 — Fri, 06 Jun 2008 21:06:30 +0000

Thanks for revealing once again that the wannabe-Emperor has no clothes. I keep coming back to one thought about McCain: what are his guiding principles? What does he believe in? Reagan talked patriotism, but also had principles that carried him to the White House. McCain seems to patritoic in the blindly loyal fashion that can be so dangerous when wedded to power.
Basically, if substance beat style in American politics, we’d be making plans to watch Ron Paul’s acceptance speech in St. Paul.

Peace be with you.

By: kitstolz

kitstolz — Thu, 05 Jun 2008 23:25:42 +0000

Style and substance aren’t mutually exclusive. Obama has a lot more to say than McCain, and he says it far more eloquently, as countless folks noted when they contrasted their speeches on Tuesday night.

Obama also has a better slogan than McCain, and a better logo. The proof of that is the fact that McCain has ineptly tried to steal both.