In an article in slate comparing Obama and McCain, the author links to this exchange of letters between the two senators. The author of the Slate article characterizes the exchange as an "unusually nasty" letter from McCain and a response from Obama "(in a joking context, but still) that his goal was to learn how to be as much of a prima donna as McCain".
Two questions. First, does that seem like an accurate description at all of Obama's response to McCain? He lays the politeness on in a thick, creamy, and perhaps not entirely sincere layer in response to McCain's vituperation, and there is a hint of humor to the letter as I'm reading it, but I'm not really seeing in this what the author of the article is. Am I just missing something?
Second, does anybody have the context to know how accurate McCain's take on Obama's actions is?
[ January 08, 2008, 01:51 PM: Message edited by: Noemon ]
Posted by erosomniac (Member # 6834) on :
I'm clearly missing something.
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
McCain's vitriolic nature was one of the main things people complained about in the 2000 primary race. They are just speaking different languages. Obama is a black man in a white world, where you get ahead by being as nice as possible, and McCain is in a particular style of the white world where you show balls of brass to get ahead.
Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
My play-by-play:
- Obama shows up at McCain's bi-partisan love-in. - McCain gets excited, because it looks like a big win for him if he can get Obama to support his bill for ethics reform. - Obama writes to say that, after talking with Dem leaders he's decided to support the party-line rather than the bi-partisan effort. Furthermore he does it with (IMO) a fairly impersonal correspondence. - McCain flames him for posturing as a bi-partisan when he planned to be a party hack all along - Obama expresses polite confusion at 1) why McCain doesn't see his support of the Dems bill as a beginning of bi-partisanship and 2) why McCain seems so angry about his own misinterpretation of Obama's intentions all along.
Personally, I don't see the humor the Slate commentator read into the final letter. I can see why McCain was so frustrated; he probably had unreasonable expectations that Obama would throw support to a bill that, really as a junior senator, he probably couldn't politically support. And that, even if he had the seniority to buck Dem leadership, he probably wouldn't have on ideological grounds. McCain's reference to the 2006 elections also may betray his party's (well-founded) insecurities going into the election.
Honestly, though, after reading the exchange I think McCain comes off better on the question of who is more interested in changing the way Washington works. But again, that might just be an artifact of the particular political dynamics of early 2006.
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
This part baffles me:
quote:learn how to be as much of a prima donna as McCain
Where does it say that? Maybe I'm just hyperliteral, or maybe there's a good reason I don't consider Slate a reputable news source.
Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
That's part of what I'm asking, pooka; I don't see it either.
As for Slate in general, I don't really see it as a source of news; it's more a source of commentary, some of which I agree with and some of which I don't. I generally enjoy the site, though.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
I don't see the "prima donna" thing either. I not exactly unbiased, but I saw the response as a gracious response to a bizarrely over-the-top and childish letter from Senator McCain.
I once respected Senator McCain, even though I disagree with him on many issues. I still think that he is a good, honest person, but I am am becoming more and more convinced that he is "losing it". That letter surprised me and makes me seriously doubt that he has the temperment to be president.
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
Ah, yes, temperment. That was the word they were always using in the winter of 2000. President Johnson seemed to have a similar temperment, but has the time passed for that kind of man to lead America?
Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: I saw the response as a gracious response to a bizarrely over-the-top and childish letter from Senator McCain.
I agree with the gracious part. I think you mischaracterize McCain's letter; he was obviously frustrated, and using sarcasm, but I see it more as un-professional than childish. I personally would never dream of writing such a pointed attack, but that's part of McCain's allure, right? Straight talk and all that?
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Definitely unprofessional. I thought the repeat of the "well, I certainly won't make that mistake again" sounded petulant. There is a difference between straight talk and pouting.
Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
Anybody else think at all about the various candidates in terms of how well they'd fit in here? I just thought "McCain would definitely do better at Ornery or GreNME than he would here" and then realized that I was doing it. :: laugh ::
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Hot damn that was one smug letter from McCain. Sounds just like his brand of sarcasm. Obama might late laid it on a LITTLE thick, but I think he came across as rather sincere.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Smug? I read it as pissed off, and not smug at all.
Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
McCain's doing a lot of patting himself on the back for being a real bipartisan, while dressing Obama down for not. I don't know that "smug"'s the right sentiment; maybe self-righteous.