Obama's likable enough, I suppose,

[pnwmom]

although "periodically" he says things that make it appear he "feels" a bit . . . superior.

Is an extra dose of narcissism more-or-less a prerequisite for those who aspire to the Presidency?

Maybe there's no way around it. Could it be that anyone who thinks he or she is qualified to lead one of the most powerful countries in the world would have to be more than a bit self-important?

[sandnsea]

1. You really wasted a post to say that? n/t

[pnwmom]

3. Knowing how damaging a narcissistic President can be,

with Bush being a prime example, I think it's a valid question.

Many people also think Bill Clinton is a narcissist. Should we just resign ourselves to the fact that it's practically part of the job description?

[KittyWampus]

40. You mean like someone who can't fire her campaign manager despite the incompetence

and mounting rancor caused by that person's presence and ineptitude?

You mean someone whose campaign decided "Inevitability" was a good campaign theme?

Who thought "Ready On Day One" worked as a campaign slogan but in reality, didn't bother putting money or infrastructure in any states past Super Tuesday cause they actually believed no one else could compete?

[pnwmom]

48. Making mistakes doesn't mean you're a narcissist.

It means you're human.

[Guava Jelly]

2. You sort of have to be full of yourself to be in politics anyways.

I would say what looks and sounds like superiority may just be confidence. :shrug:

[BringBigDogBack]

4. what a picture

:rofl: I don't know why that's funny.



But it is.

[CorpGovActivist]

5. I'm with you!

:rofl:

[Guava Jelly]

7. It hits close to gd:p home doesn't it?

There are a lot of bruised fist in here.

[Apollo11]

6. Cruelty to animals (even dead ones) is not funny.

[CorpGovActivist]

8. OMG. I want the popcorn concession on this fight: PETA vs. New Agers...

... arguing about whether or not the "horse" departed upon its death, and is now just a carcass.

:popcorn:

Leave the Kumbaya drums at home today, kiddies! This here's gonna be a full-on geek-wing smackdown.

[Guava Jelly]

9. um

I assure you that no animals were harmed in the creation of this gif.

[CorpGovActivist]

10. Oh, please, where is that GIF?!?

[Guava Jelly]

11. I have it kept in a constrictive folder in my photobucket account.

I stop in know and again to make sure it has water and punch it a few times.
It is great for relieving tension.

[BringBigDogBack]

12. lol

good stuff.

[Guava Jelly]

13. Thanks

If anything I'm a smart ass. :D

[CorpGovActivist]

14. Ney.

Say it ain't so.

[H2O Man]

15. I can remember

when a journalist suggested that Jesse Jackson was a bit full of himself in 1988. Jesse noted that few people would want a person with an inferiority complex for president.

[pnwmom]

17. True. But I'm just so sick to death of our current Narcissist-in-Chief. n/t

[CorpGovActivist]

16. What America really needs is a self-cloisterer, who can't compete...

... except in very special, very fragilely-wrapped, environs.

[pnwmom]

18. Oh yeah, like Yale Law School. Quite a cloister.

You do realize that when HRC was at Wellesley, the Ivy League undergraduate schools were all-male. So does that make anyone who attended the Ivy League (FDR, JFK and his brothers) also a "self-cloisterer"?

Or is this just another example of DUer misogyny?

[CorpGovActivist]

24. Wellesley's "brother school" was??? Is???

"You do realize that when HRC was at Wellesley, the Ivy League undergraduate schools were all-male. So does that make anyone who attended the Ivy League (FDR, JFK and his brothers) also a 'self-cloisterer'?"

I lived three flights directly above JFK's preserved rooms at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Winthrop_House">Winthrop House.

Why not http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radcliffe_College">Radcliffe?

There's a distinction, and a difference, here. And it's an important one. "Radcliffe Women" have - from the outset - engaged directly with the men, and thereby wielded far greater influence in bringing about understanding. Radcliffe as a separate entity is now confined to gender studies specialties, as you can see from following the link. It continues to play an important part in the Harvard community, but it ain't Wellesley. "Wellesley Women" continue to cloister themselves. Even the campus gates seem to bristle. Men on campus are made to feel like they've stumbled into the last refuge of the legendary Amazons. It's an odd, odd place.

"Or is this just another example of DUer misogyny?"

Nope. I can rattle off more strong progressive women leaders than most women I know.

- Dave

[CorpGovActivist]

32. ^^^^^^^^^

[pnwmom]

34. Wellesley is an "odd, odd place" populated with Amazons? Spoken like a Harvard man.

(And Harvard? -- talk about an odd, odd place).

Being able to cite more names of progressive women than your acquaintances hardly exempts you from the possibility of misogyny -- which seems to increase with every word you type.

Wellesley had cross-registration with M.I.T. (and still does).

Radcliffe women in Hillary's era couldn't even go in the Harvard Library. Please don't pretend that what they had -- as excellent an education as it was -- could be considered co-education.

[CorpGovActivist]

41. "Wellesley had cross-registration with M.I.T. (and still does)."

Do you know the actual distance between those two campuses? As opposed to Harvard and Radcliffe, which are - for all practical intents and purposes - the same campus?

How many miles separate MIT and Wellesley?

How much actual, practical interaction occurs?

Get real.

- Dave

[pnwmom]

43. Wellesley women could use the library at M.I.T. as well as attend classes there.

"For all practical purposes" Radcliffe and Harvard were the same campus? In Hillary's era? Get real.

Radcliffe women were banned from the Lamont Library at Harvard until 1967, but they had access to the social facilities, for what that was worth.

http://oasis.lib.harvard.edu/oasis/deliver/~sch01123

[CorpGovActivist]

44. Do a Mapquest of the distance from Wellesley's campus to the MIT library...

... then talk to me about the practical implications.

As a practical matter, Radcliffe women could actually exercise the ability to attend Harvard classes. The classrooms were within strolling distance.

Mapquest Wellesley and MIT, and tell me - please - that Wellesley students were flocking to MIT lecture halls in anything approaching the numbers (within 2 orders of magnitude) as the number of Radcliffe students in Harvard halls.

Please. Make that case.

- Dave

[pnwmom]

46. If you can't even go into the main undergraduate library,

you're not getting the same education as the guys. I don't care how few steps there are to walk to the classes.

And I don't need to mapquest anything. I'm familiar with all three campuses, though -- unlike you -- I am not connected with any of them. (I also happen to know that Harvard continues to be snooty about its library. Harvard students taking classes at MIT are free to use the MIT library, for example, but the reverse isn't true.)

[CorpGovActivist]

50. I worked all four years of my undergrad at the Law School Library...

... and am quite familiar with the ins and outs of reciprocity with other systems in the Boston area, both at the undergrad level (Lamont, Widener, the map collection, etc.) and the graduate level (e.g., Baker at the Business School is pretty snooty even with other Harvard schools).

Radcliffe students had their own undergraduate library system, and you're right: they were, for far too long, banned from the Harvard libraries.

But they weren't banned from the classrooms. And those interactions, those intellectual battles, those fireworks, are what tore down barrier after barrier after barrier.

Harvard/Radcliffe women give me a true run for my money, and often best me.

Very few Wellesley women ever do. There is a very distinct difference in the ability to take into account divergent viewpoints, and the blind spots of a self-cloistered education cannot be understated.

- Dave

[pnwmom]

52. Perhaps the most academically inclined Wellesley students

don't bother to make the trip over to Harvard.

[CorpGovActivist]

54. I love Hermione Granger...

... precisely because she doesn't hold back, and precisely because she throws down, intellectually, with anyone. Anyone.

If I had 100% factual information about only one thing - ONE THING ONLY - about Hillary Diane Rodham, it would be this:

* What schools did she apply to, and get accepted to?

Because if she self-selected NOT to go to a school where she could interact - and indeed, be forced to interact - then I think the self-cloistering on her part is a fatal flaw.

If, on the other hand, she applied to, but did not get into, a school further along in its gender interactions, I think her self-cloistering is more understandable.

Either way, I think it helps explain why she proceeded as she did on HillaryCare 1.0.

- Dave

[pnwmom]

56. Choosing to go to Wellesley: the "fatal flaw."

My daughter (who's at Stanford now) didn't apply to Harvard because she found the students there insufferable. I'm beginning to know what she meant.

[pnwmom]

35. Suggest you read "Yards and Gates: Gender in Harvard and Radcliffe History."

It might open your eyes. Or maybe not.

From Amazon:

Book Description
In 1997 Harvard College dedicated a gate into the Old Yard to celebrate the 25th anniversary of housing female students in the dorms. Intended as a symbol of opening, it was also a reminder of separation. Women have always been an important part of Harvard, but they have often functioned "outside the gate." This compelling collection explores the fences, real and symbolic, that overshadow women from institutions--and reveals the importance of looking at history with gender in mind. From the early days of Radcliffe, one of the Seven Sisters, to the interaction of teachers and students, to the Harvard community of working people, non-whites, and women, these essays explore aspirations as well as marginality. They celebrate the resilience of Radcliffe, which has transformed its image, in one generation, from a stepping stone to eventual integration with "the men" to a significant institution focused on women--an end desirable in itself. These are stories about once-locked gates, and those who opened them.

[CorpGovActivist]

42. You prove the point I'm making. The interaction may have been painfully slow...

... but it was there, it was real, it was daily, and it has led to the first woman President of Harvard, in the wake of the abominable comments of CLINTON TREASURY SEC larry summers.

- Dave

[pnwmom]

45. Which of your points? That women at Wellesley were Amazons?

That just by being in closer proximity to men (but banned from the library), women at Radcliffe benefited immeasurably?

Give me a break.

[CorpGovActivist]

47. Nice try. What I wrote was...

"Men on campus are made to feel like they've stumbled into the last refuge of the legendary Amazons."

That's a distinction with a difference. If you choose to ignore that distinction, that's a sure sign of fauxlectualism. Trust me. I've undone trickier logical fallacies than that elementary nut.

"That just by being in closer proximity to men (but banned from the library), women at Radcliffe benefited immeasurably?"

Actually, I think the men benefited as much or more from the proximity to smart, tough-minded, challenging women.

One of the problems I have with self-cloistered institutions like Wellesley is - if the members of that institution are so worthy, why are they shuttering themselves and their enlightenment away from those who could most benefit from it? It's absurd. Closed systems of this type are patently absurd.

It is no less absurd for an all-woman's college to exist as it is for an all-male school to exist. It produces a narrow view, either way.

The ridiculous anachronism of barring women from Lamont is deplorable, and - if it weren't for the fact that it probably deprived some very smart women of access to resources they needed - it would be comical by today's standards.

But don't pretend for one moment that Wellesley is ahead of Radcliffe. It just isn't. Radcliffe women had the courage to tear down barrier after barrier after barrier.

Wellesley women created a cloister that is much more laughable today, frankly, than the library ban at Harvard.

Wellesley is the anachronism now. And Hillary is a relic of that cloister.

- Dave

[pnwmom]

51. I'm supposed to trust you, huh? Because you're the Harvard guy, I suppose.

Your distinction is self-serving. It is obvious what you meant.

I'm not pretending that Wellesley today is "ahead" of Radcliffe, whatever that means. But since we are talking about Hillary and her "self-cloistering" the only relevant comparison would be the Harvard and Wellesley of HER ERA. And in that era, Harvard was "cloistered" compared to any real co-educational university.

So lay off with the attitude of superiority . . . if that is at all possible.

[CorpGovActivist]

53. You don't have to "trust" me, just don't misrepresent what I wrote...

... like a fauxlectual. Because I will defend the distinction and the difference, and will not let you redefine what I wrote in plain black and white.

Not even if you had Harvard/Radcliffe, summa cum laude hanging on your wall, would I let you get away with that. No, ma'am.

Single standard of intellectual honesty applies.

"I'm not pretending that Wellesley today is 'ahead' of Radcliffe, whatever that means."

By any objective criteria. Start with the lists of notable alumnae.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Radcliffe_College_people">Radcliffe

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Wellesley_College_people">Wellesley

By their fruits, ye shall know them.

"But since we are talking about Hillary and her 'self-cloistering' the only relevant comparison would be the Harvard and Wellesley of HER ERA."

I thought you might raise that, and I am delighted you did. The distance between MIT and Wellesley is the same now as then. But the transportation shuttles? They're a very new phenom. That means that the "on paper" ability to cross-register at MIT was even more remote of a practical matter then as it is now, given the traffic and distance between the two campuses.

"And in that era, Harvard was 'cloistered' compared to any real co-educational university."

And yet, Radcliffe women interacted on a daily basis with some of the very stubborn asses whose eyes needed to be opened.

While Wellesley women deprived anyone but each other of their talents.

In the quantity and the quality of their interactions, Radcliffe women were in the vanguard of making practical application of things Wellesley women were only theorizing about.

- Dave

[pnwmom]

55. So, given the benefits of coeducation that you extol, I assume you'll agree

that the education at Berkeley and Stanford was far superior to what was offered at Harvard before it became fully coeducational?

[saltpoint]

19. Not a lot of agoraphobic hermits seek public office.

[pnwmom]

20. Is that the opposite of a self-important narcissist? n/t

[thoughtcrime1984]

21. The opposite of Bush, that's for sure

If you can't see that.... :shrug:

[saltpoint]

22. Your OP rests on there being no other choices.

A case could be made, and likely should be made soon, that good leaders can be both extroverted in their reach to a populace but contemplative and capable of valuing the individual psyche within those groups.

Both are definitional threads in the Constitution which presidents are asked to uphold and respect.

At present the current Occupant seems incapable of that balancing act and we are all the less for it.

[pnwmom]

33. You've answered my question -- And I hope you're right.

[Perry Logan]

23. Some of what looks like haughtiness in Obama may be his way of projecting self-confidence.

[Tennessee Gal]

25. If that is true, he should learn how to control his mannerisms.

Many politicians are self-confident without projecting haughtiness or arrogance.

I am sick of the mannerisms of arrogance in George W. Bush.

[CorpGovActivist]

26. Do you find the lack of gracious concession speeches - 10 times in a row - a mannerism...

... that needs work?

Just curious.

- Dave

[rug]

27. Yes. Fortunately he will have several more occasions to fix that.

[CorpGovActivist]

30. A fool will learn in no other.

:toast:

[Tennessee Gal]

28. We are talking about mannerisms, not actions.

[CorpGovActivist]

31. Turning tail, stalking out of the state ...

... that's a mannerism and an action.

[pnwmom]

36. Now she's turning tail and stalking, huh?

Nice.

[pnwmom]

37. You could be right. n/t

[Armstead]

38. You're beginning to sound more reasonable in your old age

just kidding

[RBInMaine]

29. Oh Please. Twisting words again. He clarified this.

Several times Obama has clarified this. In the NH debate, an understandably tired Obama said,
"You're likeable enough Hillary," when the questioner brought up the likeability issue. At the time, Hillary smiled and was not offended. When I saw it, I in no way took this in a negative statement at all. Since then, Barack has said several times, including in a subsequent debate, that he should have simply said, "You're PLENTY likeable, Hillary." and that was OBVIOUSLY just what he meant. He was SUPPORTING her likeability, NOT impugning it. In th CA debate he was also very gracious and when asked said that "Hillary would be on anyone's VP short list." Kindly give this up.

[pnwmom]

39. She was smiling, but he was not.

"You're plenty likable" and "you're likable enough" are FAR from meaning the same thing, and the former was not obviously what he meant.

[Lerkfish]

49. cool, its opposite day