Remarkable Ruth Marcus Article

Google Technorati del.icio.us digg reddit
Ruth Marcus wrote a remarkable article today, yet it had no substance.  What was remarkable about it?

Ruth Marcus of the so-called "liberal" Washington Post achieved something truly remarkable today. 

Her opinion piece was the typical, run-of-the-mill, conventional-wisdom nonsense you see during these campaigns.  It had a lot of words but zero substance.  The premise was that Obama was too elite, too soft, and couldn't relate to the common man.  Her conclusion is he needs to do more to make people feel like he's one of us.

What is so remarkable about it is that I found it to be so typical, so standard, so brainless, so free of substance that I would argue it is the finest piece of crap I've read in a long time.  It takes talent to write an article so empty and stupid.  A lesser journalist might accidentally let some insight or substance sneak in, but Marcus keeps it 100% pure drivel.

Even if the brilliant Glenn Greenwald set out to write a parody of this kind of opinion piece, employing every tired cliche in the toolbox, I believe he would come up short. 

You should really read it yourself to appreciate its emptiness.  Her thesis is that voters can't be expected to understand all that fancy, nuanced policy stuff (doesn't that make her elitist?).  Instead, the ill-informed voters (who are ill-informed because of articles like this) need an image to be a proxy for true understanding.  Her trick, which she must think is quite sneaky, is to use Democrats to paint Obama as elitest and out of touch.  Clever, no?

She says they need Obama to act more like he cares (uh, you mean like being a community organizer?), not to seem too exotic or smart.  Ironically, Marcus graduated with a law degree from Harvard and has analyzed Obama's brilliant understanding of the constitution.  So she knows he seems elite because he is elite.  Isn't that a good thing?!?!

How could anyone who has suffered from the last 8 years of an administration run by a total dumbass say something critical about someone being too smart?  I loved it when John Stewart pointed out this dude as the kind of brain we want as  president.  Aren't we all tired of this dude?

By the way, how has John McCain shown he feels our pain?  By eating birthday cake with Bush while people were dying in New Orleans?  By not even knowing what kind of car he has or how many houses he owns?  By proposing a tax plan that cuts taxes for the rich dramatically more than for the middle class?

I'm sure if Obama bought a fake ranch or pretended he was a cowboy or started inviting his media pals over for BBQ or started getting Sunni and Shia mixed up, Ruth Marcus would feel he was becoming better candidate.  In the meantime, how can this exotic elitest arugala eater that can't bowl ever hope to connect with the dummies Marcus thinks we all are?

 

 

< Rain at the DNC? Hurricane for the RNC.... | Big Trouble for Big Easy and Big Mac >
 Display:
That the article is dead on right. Obama comes off as "above" those around him, and lots of people cannot relate to him... He looks and acts phony when he tries weakly to convince us that he is some sort of "man of the people"... John McCain doesn't have that problem, and that's gonna be a big advantage for him in the coming weeks... So you Obama supporters go ahead a rail against the "low info Joe Sixpack" voters some more - Please - call em stupid and lazy and beneath you - you are only playing into McCain and the medias hands... :)

by bobo1 on 08/28/2008 10:00:46 AM EST


I never railed against low info Joe Sixpack, just the media figures like Ruth Marcus that treat everyone like we are.

If you're saying that Obama's problem is that he's not a good enough actor pretending like he's a regular guy, I would say that it's not my main criteria for voting on a president.

Hopefully, more people in November will agree with me than they do with you.

by ascii on 08/28/2008 10:12:02 AM EST

[ Parent ]
But you know that there are more people who vote strictly on emotion and "Do I Like the Guy" standards than on issues and truths...

And Obama simply isnt connecting on a personal level with a lot of undecided voters...

:)

by bobo1 on 08/28/2008 10:26:10 AM EST

[ Parent ]
If thats true, I applaud them. If they are truly undecided it means they have reservations about McCain too.

by whoosh on 08/28/2008 11:31:50 AM EST

[ Parent ]

Your comment goes back to my original point about the crap journalism that ends up distorting the truth. 

Sadly, people that follow the race reading journalists like Ruth Marcus or watching Fox News don't have an accurate picture of either candidate. 

Since few voters actually meet the candidates in person, the only way they can "connect on a personal level" is through the media and the way their portrayed.  The argument in my post is that this portrayal is shallow, inaccurate, and misleading. 

Since voters who do vote on "do I like this guy" are at the mercy of what information they are given, I believe it is important to point out how flawed and insubstantial this information really is.

 

by ascii on 08/28/2008 11:47:48 AM EST

[ Parent ]

He's the site racist. No matter what is said negative about Obama it will be right and Obamas actions will always be wrong.

All I had to see was : Obama's exotic background and I pretty much guessed the rest.

I would venture a guess that as time goes on the "exotic argument" will go away as a "whitebread" upbringing will become less and less common place.

McCain was born in the Canal Zone...pretty exotic.

The "can you relate", or "drink a beer with him", argument is absurd at all levels.

When I had my surgery a while back my doctor was an asshole...and one of top Thoracic surgeons in the US.He kept calling me Mr Gulliani, oddly enough mangling my last name. I'm alive..and I still dont want to drink a beer with the prick.

 

 

 

by MRFred on 08/28/2008 12:25:21 PM EST

[ Parent ]

I remember one of her earliest columns for the Post and it shows that she's not just vapid but dishonest. Her column attacked Nancy Pelosi, who'd just become speaker, because Pelosi didn't want Jane Harman to be the head of the House Intelligence Committee.

Marcus argued that it was because Pelosi was catty and didn't like competition from the other California congresswomen. Why is that dishonest? Because--as Marcus SURELY knew--Harman was the top democrat on the Intel. Committee in the lead-up to the Iraq war and supported it. Also--as Marcus SURELY knew--Harman had called on AIPAC to strong-arm Pelosi into picking her to head the committee.

But any casual reader of Marcus' column would think Pelosi was being catty and difficult and that she didn't have serious policy concerns with letting Harman take over the committee where she could help the administration saber rattle its way into Iran.

That's dishonesty. 

by dclawyer06 on 08/29/2008 05:13:45 PM EST


 Display: