orichalcum (![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
orichalcum) wrote2007-12-08 12:30 pm
orichalcum) wrote2007-12-08 12:30 pm
Entry tags:
Dungeons and Dragons Players for Obama
So, last night, A. and I went to a fundraiser for Barack Obama at the Second City, which featured a brief version of their ongoing revue, "Between Barack and a Hard Place," as well as the Senator himself, who gave a speech.
A. and I had been wanting to see this sketch comedy group, probably the best in the nation, former home of Bill Murray, Dan Ackroyd, Mike Myers, Stephen Colbert, Tina Fey, John Belushi, etc, etc... for some time.
They're good. They don't pull any punches - the sketch about "Silary Minton" trying to hire an assassin to take out Obama, except that all the assassins turn out to be in love with Obama, was at the edge of my humor comfort zone, but very funny. The actress playing Hillary managed to do a remarkable impression merely by use of a good haircut (wig?) and sunglasses, even though she must be 35 years younger than the Senator. I especially liked the moment where the character lost her temper and picked up a chair, shouting "Hillary Mad!"
They also made fun of Obama himself, featuring a skit in which he talked to Lincoln, among other things.
The most surprising moment for us, though, was during a recurring sketch in which representatives of various political minority groups came up and delivered some variation on the theme "I am Barack Obama. I can speak for women, because my mother was a woman," and so forth. The minority groups got more extreme during the course of the sketch, until we were finally treated to:
"I am Barack Obama - and to all of the Dungeons and Dragons players out there, I want you to know that I am also a 7th level elven ranger."
Sadly, neither of us felt comfortable cheering, because, well, this was also a networking event, with potential colleagues of A's present, and it wasn't the time to be Geek and Proud. But it was a great line. Amusingly, having now met him - it's accurate, too. If I was to cast Obama as a D&D character, 7th level elven ranger seems pretty darn appropriate. No idea of course whether the candidate, as opposed to the sketchwriters, has any concept of D&D. But if he does, he should totally form an adventuring party with Stephen Colbert. :)
So, the advantage of having silly lawyer salaries to make donations with is that you actually get to be one of about 100 people in a room with the candidate. We were in the front row, about six feet away from him, and we got to shake his hand. On a totally irrational level this was very cool - the closest I've gotten to a major candidate before was about 500 feet from Lloyd Bentsen in 1988.
Impressions:
He's extremely intelligent, something that doesn't necessarily come across in television or still pictures. My overwhelming impression in fact, was that he reminded me of a really good professor. He has that professor/actor forehead? People who know what I mean will understand - I'm not trying to be all phrenological here, nor do I think brain size corresponds to intelligence.
He did an extraordinary job of giving a speech that managed to sound not like a canned monologue but like a conversation where he happened to be doing all the talking. It wasn't rabble-rousing at all; I didn't feel stirred or gung-ho, surprisingly. Maybe he was saving those kinds of appeals for the big rock concert later in the evening. Rather, I felt more like he was standing there thinking at and with us about why he ought to be President. And yes, of course 90% of it was the same speech I'm sure he gives 3 times a day. There were some funny ad-lib bits at the beginning, and some new jokes he's presumably just added in: "I was precocious in kindergarten, I admit. I knew how to write my name and I was proud that I could write MOM. But I don't think I was writing essays about wanting to be President."
He talked about how, a year ago, he and Michelle had sat down and asked three questions. Would their family survive the rigors of a presidential campaign? Yes, if they were careful. Could he win? Yes, if he did very well in Iowa and New Hampshire and then rode on that momentum. Should he win? This, of course, was the interesting one.
One of his arguments, in particular for why he was running _now_, was that he and his wife were only about 3 or 4 years from the days of being "normal people," of shopping at Target and driving a used car and trying to pay off their credit card bills. He talked about how that gave him perspective on the lives and needs of everyday Americans that it was very easy to lose - that he could already see his family losing in the midst of Beltway and celebrity life. He talked about an experience a few months ago when, at the invitation of the SEIU, he followed a home-care worker for a day and did her duties, and how all she really wanted was the ability to take a day off now and then from caring for her 88-year-old homebound patient.
He alluded to Iran, and to the need to make tough and potentially unpopular decisions before rushing into war, and basing decisions on basic principles rather than on political calculations. He talked a lot about needing a Presidential candidate who could unify the country, who independents and even Republicans could accept and support.
There was a terrific moment here in his speech:
"People whisper it to me while they're shaking my hand, after speeches. They say, 'Barack, I'm a Republican, but I support you.' "
"I say, 'Thank you. ::beat:: 'Why are we whispering?' "
I had expected, I think, more of a demagogue, someone who oozed charisma out of every pore. What I found was someone very human, very thoughtful, passionate but not a zealot, a professor rather than a preacher, someone who honestly believed that the right approach towards people who disagreed with him was to keep talking to them, and someone who clearly adored his family. He is handsome but not sexy, incidentally, but I suspect![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-userinfo.gif)
julianyap would seriously love his suit.
I liked him. I don't know if the man I saw can become President - I don't know if he's ruthless enough or determined enough. But I'm glad I met him, and I'm glad I donated to him, and I'm going to vote for him and encourage all of you to vote for him as well.
In answer, incidentally, to the biggest charge against him that some folks have levied - the lack of experience - here are my brief thoughts:
Do I wish he had more experience? Yes, of course. But I think he measures up well in comparison with his leading rivals. Hillary Clinton is mostly running on 8 years as First Lady - which is negative experience for me in the most part, because I'm highly anti-nepotism and would really prefer the first female President not to be elected because of her husband. I'm frankly a bit angry and upset about her performance as a Senator for 8 years, given that she helped support one war, has been supporting aggressive moves towards Iran, and did not help New York get the relief and recovery and security money it needed after 9/11. (She was my senator for 5 of those years.) Clinton hasn't done a lot of good for New York.
John Edwards was Senator for 6 (EDIT - thanks, Julian) years - about 1.5 of which he was largely campaigning for President. He didn't do a lot as Senator, and did vote for the Iraq war. Furthermore, before that, he was a private trial lawyer, which doesn't give him much political experience at all.
There are a bunch of second-tier candidates with terrific resumes - Biden, Richardson, Dodd - and I really hope one of them becomes VP. But, well, their candidacies haven't taken off, largely due to lack of charisma, and I'm not going to support a candidate who doesn't stand a chance of winning.
And then we come to Obama. A new Senator? Yes, definitely, although he's been taking good stances in the U.S. Senate. But he does have extensive experience passing major bills and working on major inter-party compromise legislation in the Illinois state senate - getting important things done like all police interrogations taped, for instance. And he's been working in local politics and community organizing for 20 years - this is a man who's been involved in trying to help the needy and downtrodden through the use of organization and government for his whole adult life, and he hasn't rested on anyone else's coattails. Do I wish his story and drive were attached to Richardson's CV? Yeah, I do. But of the top three, I think he stands up pretty darn well, and I trust him and, more importantly, his judgment more than Clinton or Edwards.
A. and I had been wanting to see this sketch comedy group, probably the best in the nation, former home of Bill Murray, Dan Ackroyd, Mike Myers, Stephen Colbert, Tina Fey, John Belushi, etc, etc... for some time.
They're good. They don't pull any punches - the sketch about "Silary Minton" trying to hire an assassin to take out Obama, except that all the assassins turn out to be in love with Obama, was at the edge of my humor comfort zone, but very funny. The actress playing Hillary managed to do a remarkable impression merely by use of a good haircut (wig?) and sunglasses, even though she must be 35 years younger than the Senator. I especially liked the moment where the character lost her temper and picked up a chair, shouting "Hillary Mad!"
They also made fun of Obama himself, featuring a skit in which he talked to Lincoln, among other things.
The most surprising moment for us, though, was during a recurring sketch in which representatives of various political minority groups came up and delivered some variation on the theme "I am Barack Obama. I can speak for women, because my mother was a woman," and so forth. The minority groups got more extreme during the course of the sketch, until we were finally treated to:
"I am Barack Obama - and to all of the Dungeons and Dragons players out there, I want you to know that I am also a 7th level elven ranger."
Sadly, neither of us felt comfortable cheering, because, well, this was also a networking event, with potential colleagues of A's present, and it wasn't the time to be Geek and Proud. But it was a great line. Amusingly, having now met him - it's accurate, too. If I was to cast Obama as a D&D character, 7th level elven ranger seems pretty darn appropriate. No idea of course whether the candidate, as opposed to the sketchwriters, has any concept of D&D. But if he does, he should totally form an adventuring party with Stephen Colbert. :)
So, the advantage of having silly lawyer salaries to make donations with is that you actually get to be one of about 100 people in a room with the candidate. We were in the front row, about six feet away from him, and we got to shake his hand. On a totally irrational level this was very cool - the closest I've gotten to a major candidate before was about 500 feet from Lloyd Bentsen in 1988.
Impressions:
He's extremely intelligent, something that doesn't necessarily come across in television or still pictures. My overwhelming impression in fact, was that he reminded me of a really good professor. He has that professor/actor forehead? People who know what I mean will understand - I'm not trying to be all phrenological here, nor do I think brain size corresponds to intelligence.
He did an extraordinary job of giving a speech that managed to sound not like a canned monologue but like a conversation where he happened to be doing all the talking. It wasn't rabble-rousing at all; I didn't feel stirred or gung-ho, surprisingly. Maybe he was saving those kinds of appeals for the big rock concert later in the evening. Rather, I felt more like he was standing there thinking at and with us about why he ought to be President. And yes, of course 90% of it was the same speech I'm sure he gives 3 times a day. There were some funny ad-lib bits at the beginning, and some new jokes he's presumably just added in: "I was precocious in kindergarten, I admit. I knew how to write my name and I was proud that I could write MOM. But I don't think I was writing essays about wanting to be President."
He talked about how, a year ago, he and Michelle had sat down and asked three questions. Would their family survive the rigors of a presidential campaign? Yes, if they were careful. Could he win? Yes, if he did very well in Iowa and New Hampshire and then rode on that momentum. Should he win? This, of course, was the interesting one.
One of his arguments, in particular for why he was running _now_, was that he and his wife were only about 3 or 4 years from the days of being "normal people," of shopping at Target and driving a used car and trying to pay off their credit card bills. He talked about how that gave him perspective on the lives and needs of everyday Americans that it was very easy to lose - that he could already see his family losing in the midst of Beltway and celebrity life. He talked about an experience a few months ago when, at the invitation of the SEIU, he followed a home-care worker for a day and did her duties, and how all she really wanted was the ability to take a day off now and then from caring for her 88-year-old homebound patient.
He alluded to Iran, and to the need to make tough and potentially unpopular decisions before rushing into war, and basing decisions on basic principles rather than on political calculations. He talked a lot about needing a Presidential candidate who could unify the country, who independents and even Republicans could accept and support.
There was a terrific moment here in his speech:
"People whisper it to me while they're shaking my hand, after speeches. They say, 'Barack, I'm a Republican, but I support you.' "
"I say, 'Thank you. ::beat:: 'Why are we whispering?' "
I had expected, I think, more of a demagogue, someone who oozed charisma out of every pore. What I found was someone very human, very thoughtful, passionate but not a zealot, a professor rather than a preacher, someone who honestly believed that the right approach towards people who disagreed with him was to keep talking to them, and someone who clearly adored his family. He is handsome but not sexy, incidentally, but I suspect
julianyap would seriously love his suit.I liked him. I don't know if the man I saw can become President - I don't know if he's ruthless enough or determined enough. But I'm glad I met him, and I'm glad I donated to him, and I'm going to vote for him and encourage all of you to vote for him as well.
In answer, incidentally, to the biggest charge against him that some folks have levied - the lack of experience - here are my brief thoughts:
Do I wish he had more experience? Yes, of course. But I think he measures up well in comparison with his leading rivals. Hillary Clinton is mostly running on 8 years as First Lady - which is negative experience for me in the most part, because I'm highly anti-nepotism and would really prefer the first female President not to be elected because of her husband. I'm frankly a bit angry and upset about her performance as a Senator for 8 years, given that she helped support one war, has been supporting aggressive moves towards Iran, and did not help New York get the relief and recovery and security money it needed after 9/11. (She was my senator for 5 of those years.) Clinton hasn't done a lot of good for New York.
John Edwards was Senator for 6 (EDIT - thanks, Julian) years - about 1.5 of which he was largely campaigning for President. He didn't do a lot as Senator, and did vote for the Iraq war. Furthermore, before that, he was a private trial lawyer, which doesn't give him much political experience at all.
There are a bunch of second-tier candidates with terrific resumes - Biden, Richardson, Dodd - and I really hope one of them becomes VP. But, well, their candidacies haven't taken off, largely due to lack of charisma, and I'm not going to support a candidate who doesn't stand a chance of winning.
And then we come to Obama. A new Senator? Yes, definitely, although he's been taking good stances in the U.S. Senate. But he does have extensive experience passing major bills and working on major inter-party compromise legislation in the Illinois state senate - getting important things done like all police interrogations taped, for instance. And he's been working in local politics and community organizing for 20 years - this is a man who's been involved in trying to help the needy and downtrodden through the use of organization and government for his whole adult life, and he hasn't rested on anyone else's coattails. Do I wish his story and drive were attached to Richardson's CV? Yeah, I do. But of the top three, I think he stands up pretty darn well, and I trust him and, more importantly, his judgment more than Clinton or Edwards.
no subject
by the way, why in the world are you putting Obama and boys with bad clothing tastes beyond adult filters? what's a 13 year old going to do badly either of those??? (i realize this may just be a new lj function, but it's really weird to me...)
no subject
But I'm glad you found the thoughts helpful; I'm trying not to offend people, but I do want to provide information and perspective.
no subject
My main response to your post: Oh Gd, John Edwards! What an idiot, is he seriously considered a possible frontrunner? This man not only was a lousy VP candidate, but his idiocy in choosing to run cost me my Democratic senator!
no subject
Regarding electability - maybe so, but you've got to vote for someone.
no subject
no subject
no subject
no subject
It sounds like you didn't get to ask your question, am I right?
no subject
no subject
no subject
no subject
no subject
-Digitalemur
no subject
no subject
no subject
no subject
OK, new plan: invite Colbert to AnonyCon next year! I'd love to see what he did with Half-Orc Life...
no subject
no subject
no subject
Also, I think that it's unfair to write off Clinton's experience in the White House. She was certainly the most hands on First Lady of a long time, under her the office of the First Lady was probably almost as effective as the office of the Vice-President and I certainly put Gore's VP experience into the equation when I voted for him.
Finally, in the interest of truth-spreading, John Edwards was Senator for a full term winning election in 1998. And if you're going to fault him for spending 1.5 years out of 6 campaigning for President, then surely it's at least as bad for Obama who has spent 1 year out of 3 on the Presidential trail.
no subject
I find the First Lady argument somewhat dubious, and again, it doesn't solve the huge nepotism issue for me. Also, I think she's had to spend much of her time as First Lady reacting to personal attacks on her and her husband, which, while great practice for campaigning, isn't good experience for governing. I do admire the way in which she's reached out to a wide variety of different Senators during her time in the Senate, and that makes me hope that she'd be a good compromiser with Congress. However, I think she does a terrible job in uniting people as a symbolic national leader, because there are so many people with fixed negative opinions of her.
Honestly, if she'd been brave enough to stand up against the Iraq War in 2002 and 2003 and to denounce the march to Iran now, I might well be voting for her. But I fault her judgment then and it means I don't trust her judgment now.
no subject
Yeah, that sounds weird, but there is a way in my head that it connects up with gay marriage, as well as the sexist tradition of putting the husband's career before the wife's.
no subject
The problem is also that a family naturally has the same group of supporters and cronies. I would be almost as upset if Bill and Hillary were platonic best friends, because the effect of concentrating power within the same extremely narrow group of people would be the same. The best way to avoid corruption is to have frequent rotations not only of elected officials themselves but of their particular mini-group. I want a different vision for the country and different people running it. Even FDR's regime got seriously problematic in later terms, and he was a much greater leader than either of the Clintons has been or is likely to be.
no subject
I definitely agree with your thoughts on Clinton, and it's good to hear you trust Obama's judgement. From my perspective and to paraphrase something A. once said, if you can't get someone you agree with in office, the next best thing is someone whose intelligence, judgement and integrity you trust.
no subject
The last thing we need again in a President is someone who trusts his gut more than the facts (see also Giuliani).
But yeah...I can't say that Obama will always agree with you or with me. But my strong impression from meeting him was that he will take all views seriously, consider them, and make a decision using a very strong brain and with a very good read of people.
His original speech against the war reflects that - he wasn't objecting to wars out of pacifist principles, but to this one on the grounds that it was a "dumb war" and that we weren't prepared for the aftermath. Admittedly, I'm sympathetic to this because those were my words at the time, but the point still stands.
It also says something that most of the attacks against him have been such petty lies, like the Muslim smear. I think Krugman's criticisms of his health care and Social security plans may have some merit, though I've heard arguments both ways, but most of the other stuff thrown at him is either false or comes down to "he'll be a great President but not now when I'm running."
no subject