i don't follow politix closely, but i have to say i like obama's speaking voice. he sounds presidential.

i like obama's speaking voice. he sounds presidential.

That's the exact word that popped in to my head, too, upon viewing this. What a fantastic speaker (says the ex-speech and debate nerd).

I loooove Obama's voice, but I have had a major politico-crush on him (re: public speaking) ever since he spoke at the DNC.

I was going to say that I actually really appreciated the back and forth between Obama and Hillary re: whether or not commentary destabilizes Musharraf and where/when the public debate re: U.S. foreign relations should happen.

For all you Obama voice - groupies , some food for thought here

i've noticed also that he (more) correctly pronounces muslim, as well as other words of eastern origin.

in somewhat related news:

Pakistani TVs say Musharraf to declare emergency

i don't follow politix closely, but i have to say i like obama's speaking voice. he sounds presidential.

razib,

correct me if i'm wrong, but doesn't habitual smoking change your vocal cords? i heard that they thicken and that this changes the quality of your speaking voice--apparently with Obama, for the better.

and didn't I see your handle on Ross Douthat's much maligned post on the Pvt. Beauchamp issue?

He pronounced Pakistan very nicely but still said 'Afghanistan' the way most Americans say it...even the 'stan' portion was pronounced differently in the two words! But he has a good voice, this is the first time I've actually ever heard him talk.

and didn't I see your handle on Ross Douthat's much maligned post on the Pvt. Beauchamp issue?

i'm everywhere. ;-) yes, i'm a presence on douthat's blog, and note that one of his links on the right is to my blog. not as big of a deal as when non von mises heard me quoted on the radio during the radio open source show!

and since obama's extended family has many muslims i'm assuming that he would be pronouncing it correctly (his stepfather and father were both from muslim backgrounds).

Because, Amitabh, .....he's.......Indian!

I actually found Obama really unsuccessful in the debate, contrary to what they're all telling us to believe. He might have won his hometown crowd over, but I felt like Hillary did so much better with respect to the national audience.

He might have won his hometown crowd over, but I felt like Hillary did so much better with respect to the national audience.

hilary is blowing him away among the broad masses from what i have read.

correct me if i'm wrong, but doesn't habitual smoking change your vocal cords? i heard that they thicken and that this changes the quality of your speaking voice--apparently with Obama, for the better.

good retort by obama. nice mix of ad hominem (how dare those who voted for iraq war criticize me) and policy (pakistan, not iraq, is the real war front). but he's really got to bang hillary harder on the whole iraq war vote. get specific. like she voted against the resolution to extend negotiation time with iraq. its his only chance of overcoming the hillary juggernaut.

i can't believe the dems are going to run another pro-war candidate when this is their big issue and the polls are on their side. they have no balls. just like hillary.

I loooove Obama's voice, but I have had a major politico-crush on him (re: public speaking) ever since he spoke at the DNC.

hmmmm. i don't know, camille. you sound a little contrived. methinks you have a closet crush on Tucker Carlson.

hmmmm. i don't know, camille. you sound a little contrived. methinks you have a closet crush on Tucker Carlson.

I think he did a good job here, though it has to be said that when he originally said, "If they don't act, we will," it sounded an awful lot like he was talking about unilateral action.

There is room to interpret it in different ways, of course (as I said in my earlier post). But Hillary is right that this could cause more problems for Musharraf, and it certainly would become a BIG problem if Obama were to get elected next year.

Overall, Obama has been put on the defensive now on his foreign policy statements twice. He may sound presidential -- and I gather he's almost as appealing to women as the mighty Shah Rukh Khan -- but I think he's losing ground.

r u calling me a woman????....

Anna, thanks for posting the clip. He pronounces 'Pakistan' correctly, and props to him, but I have to grant that both Hillary and Dodd made good points, and had him backpedalling and on the defensive toward the end of the clip. They win this round. The 'Washington insiders' made him look a little amateurish. Even Dodd, who's an insider's insider - in his 5th Senate term, came off looking good, and Hillary managed to look good inspite of being somewhat schoolmarm-ish in her response.

BTW, I wonder if we can deconstruct this thing about him 'sounding Presidential' a little bit. Who are we contrasting him with? Did/does Jesse Jackson not sound Presidential? Doesn't Hillary?

Anna, thanks for posting the clip. He pronounces 'Pakistan' correctly, and props to him, but I have to grant that both Hillary and Dodd made good points, and had him backpedalling and on the defensive toward the end of the clip. They win this round.

Believe me, I wasn't trying to declare a winner. I'd need to watch (and flow) the entire debate for that. ;)

BTW, I wonder if we can deconstruct this thing about him 'sounding Presidential' a little bit. Who are we contrasting him with? Did/does Jesse Jackson not sound Presidential? Doesn't Hillary?

Well, I wouldn't mind that at all-- anyone who has read thus far knows what my first two thoughts were...

1) I like how he said "Pakistan".

2) He sounds distinguished.

:D That's all I got from that clip. Voice, and how he used it. That's not trivial. People have decided whom to vote for on just that much, if not less. ;)

He sounds distinguished... People have decided whom to vote for on just that much, if not less

Sure, I could imagine having a Chateaubriand dinner with a white wine and shallot reduction, paired with a 1985 vintage Cabernet Sauvignon, but is he a guy I can have a beer with?

Voice, and how he used it. That's not trivial. People have decided whom to vote for on just that much, if not less.

Voting be stuffed. All the women I've had serious crushes on in my life have had deep, throaty, seductive voices. As opposed to being shriller than Lata Mangeshkar on estrogen injections.

And no, before some wiseass makes the wisecrack, no, their phone numbers did not begin with 1-900.

My point is that voice does indeed count for a lot.

Thanks for clarifying, Anna :) BTW, here's Charlie Rose getting half of 'Pakistan' right in an interview with Musharraf from last year - so he's at least half as 'Presidential' as Obama! :) Twice in the first minute of the set-up, it's a long clip, and he consistently gets it half-right..

is he a guy I can have a beer with?

Man, speaking of sexy/presidential voices, I loooove Gregory Peck as Atticus in To Kill A Mockingbird. The first time I saw the movie (in class, gag), I was totally goofing off, and then the VOICE OF GOD (a.k.a. Peck) came on, and I was totally entranced.

Not saying Obama has the same kinda voice, but it IS that baritone, robust, "make you feel safe" kinda voice.

Not saying Obama has the same kinda voice, but it IS that baritone, robust, "make you feel safe" kinda voice.

the downside of possesing such a baritone, auditory security blanket for a voice, is that the most heartfelt and risky things you say are often met with a, "Huh? What did you say?" as you have to express these things sotto voce.

it's tragic, trust me.

I never understood how Barry White was such a ladie's man if his sweet nothings, upon reaching the woman's ear, were nothing more than muted rumbles.

Oops. Here's 'Pakistan' as it should have been in #22.

the downside of possesing such a baritone, auditory security blanket for a voice, is that the most heartfelt and risky things you say are often met with a, "Huh? What did you say?" as you have to express these things sotto voce.

1) I like how he said "Pakistan". 2) He sounds distinguished. :D That's all I got from that clip. Voice, and how he used it. That's not trivial. People have decided whom to vote for on just that much, if not less.

Man, speaking of sexy/presidential voices, I loooove Gregory Peck as Atticus in To Kill A Mockingbird. The first time I saw the movie (in class, gag), I was totally goofing off, and then the VOICE OF GOD (a.k.a. Peck) came on, and I was totally entranced.

the downside of possesing such a baritone, auditory security blanket for a voice, is that the most heartfelt and risky things you say are often met with a, "Huh? What did you say?" as you have to express these things sotto voce.

I think this might make a good topic for a separate discussion - what sort of voice do you look listen for, and what sort of voice do you wish you had?

Now, getting back to the current discussion: Here's who will win the 2008 Presidential election. According to somebody anyway...

I don't think having Muslims in your family would necessarily lead you to pronounce a Farsi/Sanskrit word correctly. Most Arabs I know say "Bakistan", quite incorrectly, and they're as Muslim as Maulana Maududi. But I like how Barack didn't try fake authenticity by using the Benazir Bhutto pronunciation -- "Pakistaahn". Where did she get that?

As for substance, I thought Barack's initial views were crap (see Sepoy at Chapati mystery for details), but Hilary's response was trite. Even someone as clueless as Andrew Sullivan now acknowledged that a MMA (or JI whatever) government in Pakistaahn is never going to happen. Obama's views are off-track, but Hilary's just repeating reality-free beltway convention. A pox on both their houses.

Yes, Obama's voice is very sexy.

Rahul, thanks for the beer article... so much for Bush's portrayal of the "everyman" president. I have to say that I love the idea of Bush as a Yale cheerleader, although that is apparently questionable as well (http://www.lies.com/wp/2004/08/31/cheerleaders-for-truth/). sorry, for some reason my link button isn't working.

Camille, I totally agree with you about Gregory Peck. =)

Obama sounded very presidential (if that's a word). And as to Hillary saying you need to think practical (don't think loud), I wonder if that is something that will capture the hearts of the masses. She has a valid point but her point will appeal to only someone who cares to analyze the issue properly. General population may think that Obama sounded assertive and is interested in taking actions whereas Clinton is just interested in showing the problems and not acting upon (indecisive).If you noticed the crowd cheers/boos it appears the case.

Rahul, thanks for the beer article... so much for Bush's portrayal of the "everyman" president. I have to say that I love the idea of Bush as a Yale cheerleader, although that is apparently questionable as well (http://www.lies.com/wp/2004/08/31/cheerleaders-for-truth/). sorry, for some reason my link button isn't working.

heh, heh. till this day i'm not sure why these low blows at bush (cheerleader--ie, gay--draftdodger, chickenhawk) never stuck while kerry, a football playing war hero got swiftboated easily as an effeminate fancophile. kerry, conmtrary to what the liberal media says, ran an extraordinary vicious campaign, questioning bush and chenry's patriotism while instructing his wife to say osama has been caught and bush will spring an october surprise. but nothing stuck. i was gobsmacked.

And as to Hillary saying you need to think practical (don't think loud), I wonder if that is something that will capture the hearts of the masses. She has a valid point but her point will appeal to only someone who cares to analyze the issue properly.

I think a recent issue of TIME magazine characterized Hillary as very "bran muffin"-like. ;)

She's not the sort of candidate who is meant to capture hearts. She's the sort of careful, kinda wonky, pragmatic, dependable candidate who would probably do a decent job, but she's no heart-taker. And trying to have her play that game is as smart as dressing Al in brown.

Hillary just said: a) we shouldn't discuss Pakistan policy in public, and b) Musharraf is the only bulwark against fundies. The first is asinine, the second is objectively false (low electoral support for fundies), but more importantly she's echoing Dubya's policy. This puts her in a tactically bankrupt position IMO and disqualifies me from taking her seriously. She's just more of the same.

Besides which, this family oligarchy business is really best left to South Asia and the Philippines ;)

He may sound presidential, but does he have an electable cleavage??
Thought so.

And trying to have her play that game is as smart as dressing Al in brown.

BTW, I never got the putative logic of dressing Gore in 'earth tones' - how could it have made him look more folksy and charming, even in principle? (Always meant to ask that...) :)

was I the only one who was incredibly impressed by Clinton in this clip? As a person who's cast a ballot for her husband and for GW, I'm still pretty surprised at how intelligent she sounded. To be fair though, good image aside, Obama was rightly getting burned for his stupid comment.

heh, heh. till this day i'm not sure why these low blows at bush (cheerleader--ie, gay--draftdodger, chickenhawk) never stuck while kerry, a football playing war hero got swiftboated easily as an effeminate fancophile. kerry, conmtrary to what the liberal media says, ran an extraordinary vicious campaign, questioning bush and chenry's patriotism while instructing his wife to say osama has been caught and bush will spring an october surprise. but nothing stuck. i was gobsmacked.

Bush can't be gay and anti-patriotic, he's Christian! The American public looks to him as their moral compass (God... or Goddess... help us all.) Too bad Bush scrambled onto the "savior of the Nation" platform first... Kerry didn't stand a chance.

He may sound presidential, but does he have an electable cleavage?? Thought so.

Poor Hillary. She didn't even really show off her goodies... this whole uproar about her cleavage kind of reminds me of the way Indian aunties, sweating in their salwar-kameez, will stare you down if you walk past them on a hot day wearing shorts and a tank top. She's a woman. I'm not her biggest fan, but get over it, people.

(Sorry about the rant on shorts, I've never gotten over suddenly feeling immodest when I pass an Indian family on the street, unless I'm swathed head to toe.)

P.S. Does anyone have the full story on Obama's calling Hillary the senator from Punjab? I missed any discussion on it.

I agree with Manish, especially if we consider that Dems should be running against the war-in-Iraq. "More of the same" ain't gonna cut it. Change, change, change, CHANGE. Differentiate yourself from the unpopular "leader" who got us in to this CF...how is that so difficult to grok?

::

Divya, I think every desi girl has known that clammy feeling, that immodesty-triggered anxiety. ;)

P.S. Does anyone have the full story on Obama's calling Hillary the senator from Punjab? I missed any discussion on it.

Divya, it's important to note that Hillary called herself that, first, as a joke. Obama's campaign just took it and ran with it.

We had a few posts about this...Amardeep's "Obama got less brown-friendly", my "How now brown voters?" and then, I was on NPR/WNYC discussing just that. I'm having the intern dig for fire links, as I type. ;)

Obama vs. the Senator from Punjab.

June 15, 2007:
Obama Just Got Less "Brown" Friendly

June 18, 2007:
How Now Brown Voters?

June 25, 2007:
WNYC "Brian Lehrer show" re:
Obama and the desi community

While Anna and/or Intern dig up the D-Punjab discussion, here it is in mainstream media: link

Speaking of botched humor, does anyone remember the Gandhi running a gas station in St Louis joke, as narrated by Hillary Clinton? She subsequently retracted it though.

Poor Hillary. She didn't even really show off her goodies...

Divya, I hope you realized that I was joking. :)
It just goes to show the paucity of ideas that the media have that something like this gets so much attention.

Prasanth - I don't think you should read much into the crowd. It was obviously a pro obama crowd in his home turf. Obviously they're trying to win the more liberal votes now, but Obama's comment was more hawkish then Clinton's response.

Manish Vij - I heard Hillary eats babies just like Dubya and Rethuglicans too. Explains the NARAL backing.

Somewhat more to the point, your arguments were logically bankrupt. 1- she didn't say you can't discuss pakistan foreign policy-- in fact she's elaborated many times on her on view of pakistan policy. Instead she said said you shouldnt answer hypotheticals because they tend to overplay one's hand in complex foreign policy situations and often results in intransigent black and white answers which are embarassing, hurtful from a negotiative stand point and unnuanced ('Axis of Evil' anyone). Obama did precisely that. Who do you pick now? They're both backing Bushesque policy at some point which according to you automatically makes it wrong. That prompts another really important question--How do you feel about the cuteness of puppies, considering Bush's endorsement of such a notion during Barney's puppyhood in the white house http://www.whitehouse.gov/barney/ ?

As for the second part, are you making the argument that Musharraf's overwhelming electoral majorities in his past couple free and fair elections demonstrate he could withstand any fundie push? Have you picked up a paper lately? Read anything about the red mosque? And by the way, how did Musharraf originally come to power? I'm sure that in Pakistan of all places, Musharraf's democratic strength will save us from a fundie push.

hmm, I think more than Obama's voice, what is way more is more interesting and discussion worthy are the points raised by Obama, Hillary and Dodd. But then maybe we have beaten that to death in previous threads.

For anyone else who missed the whole memo incident, here's how it was resolved:

Senator Obama's statement/apology

Round-up of his statements to India Abroad and other media

Poor Hillary. She didn't even really show off her goodies...

I suppose if she becomes President some wiseass is going to call her a Goongi goodie-ya.

He may sound presidential, but does he have an electable cleavage??

I know delectable cleavege, but what is this electable cleavage of which you speak?

Instead she said said you shouldnt answer hypotheticals because they... often results in intransigent black and white answers.. Obama did precisely that.... They're both backing Bushesque policy at some point which according to you automatically makes it wrong.

I'm Manichaean on this, we should have arrested or killed bin Laden long ago and it's silly that Musharraf's rope-a-dope with U.S. aid is restraining us. Obama's policy is not Bush-esque in that it actually focuses on the problem. Dubya took 9/11 as an excuse to mop up some other business. He's deeply unserious about getting the 9/11 culprits, whose executors reside in the NWFP and whose funders reside in Saudi Arabia. Actually focusing on the right countries is the opposite of Bushism.

Have you picked up a paper lately? Read anything about the red mosque?

Umm, yes. But the fundie parties in an election rigged in their favor crested at 11%.

Personally don't believe Obama or Clinton are electable nationally.

Clark maybe, but I think he probably would get thrashed too.

Other generals do not like very bright generals.

I'm Scotch-Irish German; family's been here since 1762; have voted Democratic since 1972.

Don't forget Bloomberg. He's who I will vote for.

I hear you. I mean considering how easy Osama is to capture (especially considering the area he's in--full of our allies and devoid of difficult terrain he could hide in) its a crime we haven't just waltzed in and put some cuffs on him so that we can give him a saddamesque trial.

As for the seriousness of Dubya on getting the culprits of 9/11 and Obama blindingly narrow vision towards it, that's really a much larger question. You can legitimately claim Iraq wasn't at all involved with 9/11 and is a distraction to caputuring bin laden, but its obvious that Bush's approach was always enveloped by his neo con advisors more wholistic strategy of fighting a larger war with 'islamic terror outfits'. And lets not jump the gun. Obama hasn't enacted any of his 'policy' yet. His rhetoric has been interesting, but we've yet to see him follow through on it when he's actually in office. This is a serious issue--remember Bush seemed like an isolationist prior to 2001. His messages were also very 'precise' before 9/11. The axis of evil comment did refer to three specific regimes which had been serious global and US antagonists. Being a Manichaean refers to your moral position, not a tactical one--something which Clinton emphasized is a problematic distinction that Obama seems to have ignored.

The lal masjid comment was sarcasm--i should have italicized it.

As for the 11% claim---so now you're saying that because a nascent nationally powerful MMA coalition only got 11 percent of the vote 5 yrs ago they don't have enough influence? Two huge problems. One the lal masjid incident and continued iraq/afghan/western pakistan operations have seemingly made the populace even more anti west and more open to these parties than before -- opinion polls bear that out. Secondly, 11% for a party which hadn't yet tried to expand itself from its regional scope with the type of pr savvy that is now available is pretty darn good especially when the leaders are only pulling in about 25%. On top of that the MMA literally controls probably the most powerful militaristic and terrorist capability outside of the army. The fact that you think that it has no ability to control the country is pretty weak--I mean its not like they could destabilize things if Mushie was assassinated

I feel he sounded arrogant in making his previous statements about pakistan but did an excellent job in clarifying what the basis of his argument is in a respectful manner. I like him alot.

I know delectable cleavage, but what is this electable cleavage of which you speak?

The one that gets you elected. It can also be delectable - they're not mutually exclusive.

Don't forget Bloomberg. He's who I will vote for.

Yeah. When does he announce his candidacy? Go third-party/independent candidates!! :)

i like obama's speaking voice. he sounds presidential.

From the way things are going for him, he is sounding more and more vice presidential to me.

I remember hearing somewhere, someplace that Obama's stature, his physique, the drape of his suits and thin neckties subconsciously hark back to the Kennedy brothers, particularly JFK, who was more polished of the two. Yet, Obama's urbane manner differs from the Cape Cod kind in that his is more international, which I think this post points out.

I agree with Manish, especially if we consider that Dems should be running against the war-in-Iraq. "More of the same" ain't gonna cut it. Change, change, change, CHANGE. Differentiate yourself from the unpopular "leader" who got us in to this CF...how is that so difficult to grok?

I think there are limits to how much you can run against the war. That's why it's to Obama's advantage to open and close questions with a forceful reminder that he was against the damn thing from the get-go and Hillary has been rather spineless throughout. However, too much anti-Iraq war posturing risks having your constituents believe that ALL the troops will be out during their term and that just ain't gonna happen, irrespective of who's President. Hillary's been mincing words with that point from the beginning and Obama's is starting speak more candidly about how pulling out all troops is wishful thinking. I think the geopolitical fallout of the war is making them seems more Bush Cheney Lite than both of them really are.

All that said, I think Obama has been pragmatic since he came out of the womb and his position on Iraq was right for all the right reasons and if his positions are now drifting closer and closer to Hillary's, I still trust him as a better steward to see this thing through.

razib:

not as big of a deal as when non von mises heard me quoted on the radio during the radio open source show!

it was that moment when bloggers became real to me. Plus, you responded to my fanmail. Until then, for me, bloggers were wannabe public intellectuals or navel-gazing socialites. Hearing you and Amardeep sharing the hour with Nussbaum was a humanizing experience. Respect!

Oh and I'm quite clear about what bloggers are now, via Colbert-

“For those of you that don’t know what a blogger is, it’s someone with a laptop, an ax to grind and their virginity.”

Amardeep --

But Hillary is right that this could cause more problems for Musharraf, and it certainly would become a BIG problem if Obama were to get elected next year.

I think Musharraf's been doing a heckuva job on his own in causing problems for himself for many months now, thank you very much. And did you actually read the rest of Obama's speech, or just the soundbite that the mainstream media has pulled out and fixated on? He's the only candidate who has talked about democracy in Pakistan in any meaningful way or suggested a true alternative strategy when it comes to foreign policy -- not that his discussion was perfect, beyond reproach, or couldn't be developed further, but he's certainly pushing the envelope for change in foreign policy more than the other principal candidates.

Overall, Obama has been put on the defensive now on his foreign policy statements twice. He may sound presidential -- and I gather he's almost as appealing to women as the mighty Shah Rukh Khan -- but I think he's losing ground.

I don't think he lost ground in that exchange at all, and not just because of his supposed "appeal to women," who presumably pay attention to substance as much as men do. As Manish and Anna said, the exchange left Hillary and others on that stage sounding entirely like more of the same.

Manish --

the fundie parties in an election rigged in their favor crested at 11%.

Not only that, but restoring democracy might actually be the best hope for curbing the fundies as well.

Please add your blog to our new directory of Indian blogs... and we'd love it if you use one of our badges as well!

http://www.indiblogger.in

Instead she said said you shouldnt answer hypotheticals because they tend to overplay one's hand in complex foreign policy situations and often results in intransigent black and white answers which are embarassing, hurtful from a negotiative stand point and unnuanced ('Axis of Evil' anyone).

i was a bit surprised when she said this - i find it very hard for any of these candidates not to deal with hypotheticals during the course of their campaigns. i understand her points about nuance and foreign policy, but she clearly said candidates should not deal with hypotheticals, so it could actually make things a bit hard on her if/when, during a future debate, she will have to respond to a hypo - she'll either not answer but lose substantive ground over her other candidates who might choose to answer, or she'll have to take back her comment about not answering hypotheticals. as a politician, she should have reserved some escape hatch in the hypothetical situation...

Ce blast wrote:
As for the second part, are you making the argument that Musharraf's overwhelming electoral majorities in his past couple free and fair elections demonstrate he could withstand any fundie push? Have you picked up a paper lately?

No Manish didn't make that point. The past election resulted in the PML-Q, PML-N and PPP coming out on top (by votes), with the MQM doing as well as it always has. The MMA had a record result, due to the unification of the religious party vote, concetration of votes in certain provinces, and the backlash from the afghanistan invasion, but it still can't match the secular parties (even with elections rigged against the PML-N and PPP). The MMA did especially poorly in Punjab, winning only 9 out of 300 provincial seats and less than 6% of the vote.

Read anything about the red mosque? And by the way, how did Musharraf originally come to power? I'm sure that in Pakistan of all places, Musharraf's democratic strength will save us from a fundie push.

There's more to Pakistan than Musharraf and the Lal Masjid. Democratic elections in Pakistan mya result in idiot industrialists or corrupt feudals returning to power, not bearded Mullahs.

On top of that the MMA literally controls probably the most powerful militaristic and terrorist capability outside of the army

Nope. That would be the MQM.

I don't know how to feel about Obama.

He does have a commanding voice, as well as a commanding presence; but there's something about him---I feel like he's just playing up to the hype that's surrounding him. What I don't know is whether it's hype or real.
Interesting article on the Clinton/Obama tension:
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/07/us/politics/07rivals.html?_r=3&ref=politics&oref=slogin&oref=slogin&oref=slogin
So there's no hope for them to run together?

...but why did he say AFF-GANN-is-TAN and not af-GHAAN-is-TAAN?

Here's a piece on Obama and his fund-raising from today's Boston Globe.

ak, I totally forgot to bring that up. I agree with you. "Let's not engage in hypotheticals"?? WOW. That's ALL you can engage in, sometimes. Besides, hypotheticals are a part of campaign history:

The issue of capital punishment came up in the October 13, 1988 debate between the two presidential nominees. Bernard Shaw, the moderator of the debate, asked Dukakis, "Governor, if Kitty Dukakis [his wife] were raped and murdered, would you favor an irrevocable death penalty for the killer?" Dukakis replied coolly, "No, I don't, and I think you know that I've opposed the death penalty during all of my life," and explained his stance. During debate preparations, Dukakis's campaign manager Susan Estrich had prepared an answer highlighting the candidate's empathy for victims of crime, noting the beating of his father in a robbery and the death of his brother in a hit-and-run car accident. Many observers felt Dukakis' answer lacked the passion one would expect of a person discussing a loved one's rape and death. Many — including the candidate himself — believe that this, in part, cost Dukakis the election, as his poll numbers dropped from 49% to 42% nationally that night. Other commentators thought the question itself was unfair, in that it injected an irrelevant emotional element into the discussion of a policy issue. [wiki]

Why shouldn't we be able to ask a candidate, "what would you do if ______"? Her response surprised me. I have a feeling her meticulous, type-A, perfectionist self regretted it, after.

I'm with ak -- Clinton did not give herself much of an out, and while I understand her point about caution, it seems silly to think that one will not be faced with hypotheticals during a presidential race.

It's true, a lot of her lines are "more of the same." On the other hand, I've actually been impressed by how much she's stepped up her non-foreign policy related policy issues, and her messaging is generally pretty tight. I do think she could carry the country, but I worry that this will come down to her having to posture as tough/manly, which is kind of her MO at present, anyway. In terms of electoral votes, though, unfortunately she doesn't bring too much to the table.

I don't think Obama could hold it down as a presidential candidate, but I do think he'd make a bang up VP. For a while I wondered if there would be a Clinton/Obama ticket, but his campaign keeps nipping at her ankles like a badly behaved puppy. It's going to be fascinating to see how things shift/unravel at the end of the year, especially with all these crazy "pushed up" primaries.

enough with this "he speaks so well" bullshit. So he's not Lil Jon. This all sounds as condescending as when republicans were clapping like seals for colin powell. The fact that his father was Muslim and he grew up in Indonesia might account for his decent pronunciation of Pakistan and Muslim, though I've never seen someone so celebrated for simply pronouncing a word since my 2-year old said fucker.

here's why he's a dip to south asians.

1. there is a common (and ridiculous) question that he's often asked, something along the lines of "are you really black?" In his 1995 book, he talks about how he asked himself that question and had it asked of him when he was trying to do work in some chicago projects. His answer there is great, coming to a conclusion that nobody is more "authentically" black than anyone else and that racial authenticity is a (sometimes useful) sham. Nowadays he has a stock answer: "Cab drivers in manhattan don't make this mistake." This is a sly and calculated response. It plays on the black prejudice and rumor that indian cab drivers don't pick up black people. All the evidence for this rumor is anecdotal and it blew up during giuliani's term when danny glover got upset about it. It is low-risk because cab drivers are politically powerless. Let's see if he would ever say "police officers in new jersey make no mistake about it when I'm driving."

2. this whole letter thing with the hilary clinton campaign. but fine, let it slide.

3. These two things to me (admittedly paranoid) show a sense of south asians being a politically expendable group, and then when he decides, "hmm, how should I show them that I'm a toughie like hilary?" and decides upon, "I'll threaten a unilateral invasion of Pakistan!" it shows him to be a) an idiot, and b) willing to at least consider starting war on a poltically conveinent group.

Conclusion: Fuck him in the ear. Fuck him in the other ear. He's lost all interest for me and I find him to be as much of a fraud as the other candidates. It's a somewhat sad realization, but at least in knowing that he wont win the nomination or election (he never had a chance), I don't feel as if such a great opportunity was missed.

ANNA, camille - thanks. when i think of debates, i cannot not think of hypotheticals that are asked during them. hypotheticals can always be qualified with 'specific circumstances' during a debate. and HRC should not have made the categoric statement that she did - she could have said everything else that she said and then made some comment about how hypotheticals are always a bit iffy in for-pol situations. when i saw this clip on the daily show, i thought this point would have been great material for jon stewart to run with, but even he didn't bring it up. and this was also a rehearsed comment - how could her entire staff overlook this idiocy?

though I've never seen someone so celebrated for simply pronouncing a word since my 2-year old said fucker.

enough with this "he speaks so well" bullshit. So he's not Lil Jon. This all sounds as condescending as when republicans were clapping like seals for colin powell.

Also, re: cab drivers and blackness, I don't actually want to get into it, but I think Obama actually brings up a good point regarding the inherently racist logic behind the idea that African immigrants (and their descendants) are not "Black." A friend of mine (Nigerian) expressed the same thing in college. Up until her junior year she would correct people and tell them she was African (not to be anti-Black, but because she was trying to enlighten others). Finally she realized that, to an extent, the idea of being Black also comes from an outside perception of who you are, and no one on the street cares if your family are African immigrants -- to the layperson, you're Black. I think this is what Obama is getting at. While we may be used to desi cab drivers, there are quite a few, I'm sure, who aren't desi and still see him as a black guy. :)

and HRC should not have made the categoric statement that she did - she could have said everything else that she said and then made some comment about how hypotheticals are always a bit iffy in for-pol situations.

enough with this "he speaks so well" bullshit. So he's not Lil Jon. This all sounds as condescending as when republicans were clapping like seals for colin powell. The fact that his father was Muslim and he grew up in Indonesia might account for his decent pronunciation of Pakistan and Muslim, though I've never seen someone so celebrated for simply pronouncing a word since my 2-year old said fucker

And please, enough with your insinuations. No one said "he speaks so well for a BLACK PERSON". You said that. No one here was so inappropriate or condescending, and to suggest it is offensive.

It's okay to like someone's voice, whether that person is Gregory Peck, Barry White, or Obama. It's okay to notice the little things, like how someone pronounces the name of a country, especially if they do it so well, that it's surprising. None of these things should be invalidated.

The issue was not whether he's articulate, but rather the actual timbre and tone quality of his voice, which, as far as I know, has nothing to do with anyone's perceptions of race.

If we could explore this just a little bit. I would disagree here. In the popular mind, the perception of 'sounding black' is not just about 'accent', grammar, vocabulary, 'stammer', articulation - or lack thereof - it is also partly about the timbre and tonal quality of the voice. As an example, I would say that James Earl Jones and Bernard Shaw (who asked the question of Dukakis that Anna referenced) have the tonal quality that many people think only 'black' men have, or can have.

I would like to think that tone and timbre - both in range and quality - are evenly distributed across all ethnicities. But in the popular imagination, it is believed that black men have distinctive timbre. That may be from prejudice and stereotyping, or from drawing conclusions from biased samples, etc. Or there may be some truth to it. But in either case, the fact is that tonal quality and timbre do factor into people's perception of race. So any kind of commentary on Obama's voice - and how he uses it - occurs in the background of perceptions (and prejudices) of this kind, and can easily be misconstrued.

But chachaji, how do you explain Gregory Peck, then? ;)

I see where you're coming from, I just think that this post has illuminated a range of people (ethnically and professionally) who have "soothing" or "distinct" voices. Just my opinion.

has illuminated a range of people (ethnically and professionally) who have "soothing" or "distinct" voices. Just my opinion

I don't mean to go too offtopic but that is so true.There are some voices that are unmistakable and define a generation such as Ameen Sayani's voice , which is instantly recognizable for generations of DBDs. Besides Gregory Peck: Sean Connery and Morgan Freeman too have distinctive voices that lend themselves so well to narration. I always believed that part of Meryl Streep's mystique is her voice : how she modulates it and enunciates dialogue adds to the performance everytime

has illuminated a range of people (ethnically and professionally) who have "soothing" or "distinct" voices. Just my opinion

I don't mean to go too off topic but that is so true.There are some voices that are unmistakable and define a generation such as Ameen Sayani's voice , which is instantly recognizable for generations of DBDs. Besides Gregory Peck: Sean Connery and Morgan Freeman too have distinctive voices that lend themselves so well to narration. I always believed that part of Meryl Streep's mystique is her voice : how she modulates it and enunciates dialogue adds to the performance everytime

SMIntern:Apologies for the duplicate post - please delete :-(

I remember hearing somewhere, someplace that Obama's stature, his physique, the drape of his suits and thin neckties subconsciously hark back to the Kennedy brothers, particularly JFK, who was more polished of the two. Yet, Obama's urbane manner differs from the Cape Cod kind in that his is more international, which I think this post points out.

i think he's mostly compared to rfk, nvm, b/c of their similar stature and outsider image. JFK was skinny once too but the tons of drugs he took to battle addison's disease and a host of other ailments (including venereal disease...he lost his virginity to a hooker, which is irrelevant i know but i like to keep things entertaining) bloated him, especially on the face...if you look at pictures of him when he was a congressman and then during his presidency you'll see the abnormal bloating. all obama needs now is his own marilyn monroe.

i got this from doris kearns goodwin's "the fitzgeralds and the kennedys." great read, despite being Kaavyed.

i think he's mostly compared to rfk, nvm, b/c of their similar stature and outsider image.

Ok, I'll stop. I know this was supposed to be about substance, not how I swoon over Gregory Peck's voice or why I think RFK is sexy. Runa, agreed on Sean Connery, although it's hard for me to find his voice soothing because I always think of Jeopardy! :)

He may sound presidential, but does he have an electable cleavage??

So its Obama's Presidential voice vs. Hillary's electable cleavage
I am sooo excited!

articulateness is an important presidential criterion. bush's lack of it has hurt him greatly, as camille paglia predicted early on. he's incapable of giving a rousing cogent defense of the war, something that blair does extremely well.

reagan, churchill, fdr all benefitted from articulateness. although i was listening to some churchill speaches yesterday and it is obvious that he was sloshed (churchill started drinking at breakfast).

Obama looks.. odd. No not becos he's black etc, in fact some older black gentlemen are high on the personality scale.. this guy looks odd. NOT charismatic enough to be a president. Does not look knowledgable enough. looks too young, and unfortunately, trivial. Does not have what they call, 'presence'.

Obama looks.. odd. No not becos he's black etc, in fact some older black gentlemen are high on the personality scale...Does not look knowledgable enough. looks too young, and unfortunately, trivial. Does not have what they call, 'presence'.

I'm confused; are you superficially dismissing him because of his looks or his personality?

So its Obama's Presidential voice vs. Hillary's electable cleavage

Sorry, I missed giuliani's shining bald head

Here's more on this whole Pakistan exchange from one of the best political journalists/bloggers, Josh Marshall. (Marshall founded the TPM blog emprie, which is probably the best investigative political blog out there -- they broke, among other stories, the US attorney/firing scandal.)

Sorry, I missed giuliani's shining bald head

giuliani's got a lisp. that would be a first. then there's the drag thing. which explains this.

I remember hearing somewhere, someplace that Obama's stature, his physique, the drape of his suits and thin neckties subconsciously hark back to the Kennedy brothers, particularly JFK, who was more polished of the two.

If there's one person from that era that Obama superficially reminds me most of, it's Malcolm X.

Overall, Obama has been put on the defensive now on his foreign policy statements twice.

Amardeep, good point. And unfortunately, in both cases, he was made to look naive by folks equivocating. Hillary's argument that she wouldn't meet evil dictators without extensive prep was a little shallow. No president would invite Castro before the administrations did a whole bunch of work. And like someone here pointed out, Dodd/Clinton don't disagree with him, they just won't say it out loud; which sounds little condescending to me. Pakistanis already don't trust their president and think he is a US puppet.

Do the criticisms of Obama re: his Pakistan statements take it as implicit that the "problem" with them is violation of Pakistani sovereignty?
If so, I'm dubious--it seems to me that the attacks would either be morally justified or not (under, e.g., just war theory). "Sovereignty" seems
like an empty formalism (and a statist one at that--like the supposed "international law" rule that you can kill all the drafted soldiers, but
can't assassinate the enemy leadership).

On the other hand, the criticisms of Obama might take it as implicit that (net) bad consequences would be expected from such attacks. That might be.
But it bothers me that the anti-Obama criticisms seldom seem to get down to brass tacks on this point.

Josh Marshall's take at TPM
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/016379.php

Divya, I hope you realized that I was joking. :) It just goes to show the paucity of ideas that the media have that something like this gets so much attention.

Sorry Amit, by "people" I meant the media. I realized you were joking. =) Thanks everyone for the Hillary-Barack Punjab name-calling... I didn't know that Hillary "started" it.

Divya, no apologies necessary. I just meant to clarify my intention with the original comment as it is easy to misinterpret on the internet minus the vocal tone and facial expressions. :)

Hillary is Bush-lite; Obama is Hillary-lite. I'd like Nader to run again and raise the democrats' hackles, frankly. will he make a difference? I dont know. Did he in 2000? Where are the good studies? loved An Unreasonable Man. Great to watch Moore and the rest of the silly shrill crowd do an about-face and turn on Nader in 2004 after being all pro-Nader in 2000. Short of that, and leaving aside identity-politics as a marker of progress, I will settle for...Edwards? Obama sounds less and less like he has anything substantive to say about anything. Nuance is one thing, not having clear or distinguishable policies is another.