Charlie Rose/Newsweek editors/ "Creepy cult of personality" ?

[HollyS]

I see no mention of this on ATW, at lease after a quick glance.

Anybody care to comment on this rather odd conversation between Newsweek and Charlie Rose on the CR show?

There are many, many links about Jon Meachum''s and Evan Thomas''s comments on Charlie Rose last week; choose any link to see the video or read the transcript.

 

[luckystar112]

HA! It was weird. It was like, "Obama is his own brand...he has created a character....it is slightly creepy...he is deeply manipulatative................................but isn''t it amazing! His loyal supporters will let him do what he wants as a ''compromise'' for the pleasure of having him be their president."
It appears that Evan Thomas was less amazed than Meacham though.

 

[Ellen]

Great discussion they had there, thanks for pointing it out Holly. I never would have guessed how interesting and overall complimentary it was by your post. At least that was my take.

(the references to Reagan should have warmed your heart)

For anyone interested.

http://www.charlierose.com/shows/2008/11/05/2/a-conversation-with-jon-meacham-evan-thomas

 

[HollyS]

Date: 11/10/2008 7:55:55 PM
Author: Ellen
Great discussion they had there, thanks for pointing it out Holly. I never would have guessed how interesting and overall complimentary it was by your post. At least that was my take.

(the references to Reagan should have warmed your heart)

For anyone interested.

http://www.charlierose.com/shows/2008/11/05/2/a-conversation-with-jon-meacham-evan-thomas

It wasn''t the whole conversation that surprised me. Just the liberals being unnerved by the self-promoting schtick of their candidate. I would not vote for someone I found "creepy". No matter how conservative they were. But then, I''ve never been a fan of the whole ''smoke and mirrors'' routine either. If they have to dress it up, and make it pretty, it probably isn''t.

Just sayin''.

 

[decodelighted]

Date: 11/11/2008 11:55:45 AM
Author: HollyS
If they have to dress it up, and make it pretty, it probably isn''t.** Just sayin''.

**See Sarah Palin: wardrobe controversy to the tune of $150k+++, and tattooed lipliner.

 

[Irishgrrrl]

Date: 11/11/2008 11:55:45 AM
Author: HollyS

It wasn''t the whole conversation that surprised me. Just the liberals being unnerved by the self-promoting schtick of their candidate. I would not vote for someone I found ''creepy''. No matter how conservative they were. But then, I''ve never been a fan of the whole ''smoke and mirrors'' routine either. If they have to dress it up, and make it pretty, it probably isn''t.

Just sayin''.

Holly, I totally agree! (Which explains why I did not vote for McCain.)

 

[HollyS]

Date: 11/11/2008 12:01:39 PM
Author: decodelighted

Date: 11/11/2008 11:55:45 AM
Author: HollyS
If they have to dress it up, and make it pretty, it probably isn''t.** Just sayin''.

**See Sarah Palin: wardrobe controversy to the tune of $150k+++, and tattooed lipliner.

First, I was pretty sure that the ''wardrobe controversy'' was revealed as not much of a controversy. And mostly inaccurate.

Second, personal choices as to grooming is not what we''re discussing, is it? Although, I confess, I would not want a prez with a fake bake.

 

[HollyS]

Date: 11/11/2008 12:03:43 PM
Author: Irishgrrrl

Date: 11/11/2008 11:55:45 AM
Author: HollyS

It wasn''t the whole conversation that surprised me. Just the liberals being unnerved by the self-promoting schtick of their candidate. I would not vote for someone I found ''creepy''. No matter how conservative they were. But then, I''ve never been a fan of the whole ''smoke and mirrors'' routine either. If they have to dress it up, and make it pretty, it probably isn''t.

Just sayin''.

Holly, I totally agree! (Which explains why I did not vote for McCain.)

Ha!

I really can''t disagree with that!

There wasn''t much of a choice in my opinion!

 

[Ellen]

Date: 11/11/2008 11:55:45 AM
Author: HollyS

It wasn't the whole conversation that surprised me. Just the liberals being unnerved by the self-promoting schtick of their candidate. I would not vote for someone I found 'creepy'. No matter how conservative they were. But then, I've never been a fan of the whole 'smoke and mirrors' routine either. If they have to dress it up, and make it pretty, it probably isn't.

Just sayin'.

To me, it was really just the guy making the comment that felt that it was "creepy". Too bad he got cut off, because right after that, he says "he's such an admirable... (and I think "fellow" was following)". He then goes on, when pressed to explain, to say it "makes him uneasy because he's so singular". And I could understand that comment, though I don't know I'd use creepy. Obama is very different from most folks, but that doesn't necessarily make him "creepy" per se, just different. How he uses that remains to be seen, but it could be a good thing. Like, ya know, other great leaders in our history.

 

[HollyS]

Date: 11/11/2008 12:43:33 PM
Author: Ellen

Date: 11/11/2008 11:55:45 AM
Author: HollyS

It wasn''t the whole conversation that surprised me. Just the liberals being unnerved by the self-promoting schtick of their candidate. I would not vote for someone I found ''creepy''. No matter how conservative they were. But then, I''ve never been a fan of the whole ''smoke and mirrors'' routine either. If they have to dress it up, and make it pretty, it probably isn''t.

Just sayin''.

To me, it was really just the guy making the comment that felt that it was ''creepy''. Too bad he got cut off, because right after that, he says ''he''s such an admirable... (and I think ''fellow'' was following)''. He then goes on, when pressed to explain, to say it ''makes him uneasy because he''s so singular''. And I could understand that comment, though I don''t know I''d use creepy. Obama is very different from most folks, but that doesn''t necessarily make him ''creepy'' per se, just different. How he uses that remains to be seen, but it could be a good thing. Like, ya know, other great leaders in our history.

I thought it was very odd, ''cause I would not have publicly said that about a candidate I had supported. Even if he/she had won; maybe especially if they had won. Strange choice of words. If you like the guy, why would you say such a thing? Unless of course, he really was a bit weirded out by Mr. O??

From my viewpoint, I think ego may have something to do with his ''singularity''. But, I will concede that it may just be his way of actually capturing -- for himself -- that moment in history, and not sharing it with any would-be hangers-on. One thing you can say, definitively, is he got here by being ''singularly'' focused. No one can say they did it for him; and that may be the key to his whole demeanor throughout the campaign.

See . . . . I can be somewhat complimentary about the guy. Sometimes.

 

[VRBeauty]

Date: 11/11/2008 12:13:09 PM
Author: HollyS

First, I was pretty sure that the ''wardrobe controversy'' was revealed as not much of a controversy. And mostly inaccurate.

Second, personal choices as to grooming is not what we''re discussing, is it? Although, I confess, I would not want a prez with a fake bake.

As one who has (and works for) a governor with a "fake bake," there are worse things.

I agree that a candidate''s personal grooming choices really aren''t that important in the big picture.

Not sure about that "wardrobe controversy" being mostly inaccurate, though. Illegal... apparently. Innacurate... not so much so. Overblown and inconsequential given other the candidate''s other -- er -- characteristics... definately.

 

[VRBeauty]

Holly, thanks for posting about this interview, and Ellen, thanks for providing a link. Now that I''ve had a chance to watch, it was a fascinating discussion!

 

[HollyS]

Date: 11/11/2008 3:26:33 PM
Author: VRBeauty

Date: 11/11/2008 12:13:09 PM
Author: HollyS

First, I was pretty sure that the ''wardrobe controversy'' was revealed as not much of a controversy. And mostly inaccurate.

Second, personal choices as to grooming is not what we''re discussing, is it? Although, I confess, I would not want a prez with a fake bake.

As one who has (and works for) a governor with a ''fake bake,'' there are worse things.

I agree that a candidate''s personal grooming choices really aren''t that important in the big picture.

Not sure about that ''wardrobe controversy'' being mostly inaccurate, though. Illegal... apparently. Innacurate... not so much so. Overblown and inconsequential given other the candidate''s other -- er -- characteristics... definately.

Most of the clothes, purchased by the RNC, were never even worn by Ms. Palin. The RNC has admitted that. And they have dressed other candidates in the past, BTW. You''ve never heard this discussion before, concerning suits and ties purchased for men, have you? As for the outright lies about her hitting every major department store, and buying tons of stuff for her family, McCain''s campaign laid that to rest a day or two ago. It was nothing more that sour grapes by a few people needing a scapegoat, so they turned on Ms. Palin. And, MCain also denounced the ''leak'' that she didn''t know her continents.

As for the clothes she did wear, they still belong to the RNC, and she will be giving them back. They will then give them to charity. Why does anyone, anywhere, for any reason, have a problem with this? Because we need something to raz her about? So that Michelle O can say on air "We buy our own clothes"? So what? I would darn sure hope that someone with an income such as Mrs. Obama''s could indeed afford her own clothes. Good for her.

Now, you and I will never know, for certain, just what transpired. So I think we probably need to give her the benefit of the doubt. Especially if we''re giving Obama a pass for his ''past'' associations, friends, mentors, and ''community organizing'' activities. Fair is fair. And across the board. Isn''t it?

 

[VRBeauty]

I took the thread off-topic. My bad.

Back to your original post: that was a fascinating interview.

 

[HollyS]

Date: 11/11/2008 4:39:19 PM
Author: VRBeauty
I took the thread off-topic. My bad.

Back to your original post: that was a fascinating interview.

No need to apologize; it was a topic I started, and I''m okay with your direction. Or deco''s. And what I said was not meant to have an ''edge'' to it; just passing on what I''d read and heard, and adding my two cents. Your two cents are always welcome.

 

[luckystar112]

McCain aids are coming to her defense, confirming what I believed the first time I read those rumors. Someone is being ridiculously malicious:
http://hotair.com/archives/2008/11/08/politico-mccain-staffers-starting-to-rally-to-palins-defense/

He says there’s no way she didn’t know Africa was a continent, and whoever is saying she didn’t must be distorting “a fumble of words.” He talked to her about all manner of issues relating to Africa, from failed states to the Sudan. She was aware from the beginning of the conflict in Darfur, which is followed closely in evangelical churches, and was aware of Clinton’s AIDS initiative. That basically makes it impossible that she thought all of Africa was a country.
On not knowing what countries are in NAFTA, Biegun was part of the conversation that led to that accusation and it convinces him “somebody is acting with a high degree of maliciousness.” He was briefing Palin before a Univision interview, and talking to her about trade issues. He rolled through NAFTA, CAFTA, and the Colombia FTA. As he talked, people were coming in and out of the room, handing Palin things, etc. She was distracted from what Biegun was saying, and said, roughly, “Ok, who’s in NAFTA, what the deal with CAFTA, what’s up the FTA?”—her way, Biegun says, of saying “rack them and stack them,” begin again from the start. “Somebody is taking a conversation and twisting it maliciously,” he says.


Side note: I also heard that a lot of the clothes bought were multiples in different sizes (that were returned), since she didn''t go shopping for herself.

 

[Ellen]

Date: 11/11/2008 1:19:07 PM
Author: HollyS

I thought it was very odd, ''cause I would not have publicly said that about a candidate I had supported. Even if he/she had won; maybe especially if they had won. Strange choice of words. If you like the guy, why would you say such a thing? Unless of course, he really was a bit weirded out by Mr. O??

From my viewpoint, I think ego may have something to do with his ''singularity''. But, I will concede that it may just be his way of actually capturing -- for himself -- that moment in history, and not sharing it with any would-be hangers-on. One thing you can say, definitively, is he got here by being ''singularly'' focused. No one can say they did it for him; and that may be the key to his whole demeanor throughout the campaign.

See . . . . I can be somewhat complimentary about the guy. Sometimes.

I would have replied earlier, but, I was speechless.

And maybe he really was weirded out, who knows. But I won''t worry until a whole mass of people find him creepy!

 

[HollyS]

Date: 11/11/2008 6:27:43 PM
Author: Ellen

Date: 11/11/2008 1:19:07 PM
Author: HollyS

I thought it was very odd, ''cause I would not have publicly said that about a candidate I had supported. Even if he/she had won; maybe especially if they had won. Strange choice of words. If you like the guy, why would you say such a thing? Unless of course, he really was a bit weirded out by Mr. O??

From my viewpoint, I think ego may have something to do with his ''singularity''. But, I will concede that it may just be his way of actually capturing -- for himself -- that moment in history, and not sharing it with any would-be hangers-on. One thing you can say, definitively, is he got here by being ''singularly'' focused. No one can say they did it for him; and that may be the key to his whole demeanor throughout the campaign.

See . . . . I can be somewhat complimentary about the guy. Sometimes.

I would have replied earlier, but, I was speechless.

And maybe he really was weirded out, who knows. But I won''t worry until a whole mass of people find him creepy!

Hee-hee! You must not listen to talk radio!!

 

[Ellen]

Date: 11/11/2008 7:39:04 PM
Author: HollyS

Date: 11/11/2008 6:27:43 PM
Author: Ellen

Date: 11/11/2008 1:19:07 PM
Author: HollyS

I thought it was very odd, ''cause I would not have publicly said that about a candidate I had supported. Even if he/she had won; maybe especially if they had won. Strange choice of words. If you like the guy, why would you say such a thing? Unless of course, he really was a bit weirded out by Mr. O??

From my viewpoint, I think ego may have something to do with his ''singularity''. But, I will concede that it may just be his way of actually capturing -- for himself -- that moment in history, and not sharing it with any would-be hangers-on. One thing you can say, definitively, is he got here by being ''singularly'' focused. No one can say they did it for him; and that may be the key to his whole demeanor throughout the campaign.

See . . . . I can be somewhat complimentary about the guy. Sometimes.

I would have replied earlier, but, I was speechless.

And maybe he really was weirded out, who knows. But I won''t worry until a whole mass of people find him creepy!

Hee-hee! You must not listen to talk radio!!

Trust me, no need. My very religious, very "right" mother has told me everything I could possibly not want to know.