In The Daily Beast, Nicole Wallace diagrams “Obama’s Seinfeld Doctrine”:
Remember that Seinfeld episode where George Costanza succeeds by doing the opposite of everything he would normally do? The Daily Beast’s Nicole Wallace thinks Obama and his staff might have watched a rerun recently—and borrowed George’s juvenile tactics in their relentless assault on President Bush. Obama’s strategy? Doing exactly the opposite of what Bush would do—and wait for global adulation.
Nicole’s not the first person to notice the Seinfeldian opposite theory in action when it comes to Obama and his staff, though. Check out this post from last August, and about 2:30 into this video from January:
Update: Welcome Insta-readers! Going through my archives after posting this, I came across this item from March of last year, when Gerard Vanderluen originally dubbed the Obama-Hillary race a Show About Nothing. The Opposite Theory though would only become apparent once Joe Biden left his familiar haunt at Katie’s Restaurant for Monk’s Cafe.
Nicole Wallace has been implicated in the McCain Campaign’s effort to diminish Gov. Sarah Palin during the campaign. I have no time for her or her work.
Um, does that mean that Obama plans to become a drunk and worship Satan?
“…drunk and worship satan?”
Another humorless leftist who watches no TV. Go watch the episode in question and then come back and see if that comment makes sense…
I think Obama is a big closet fan of Costanza:
“Its not a lie if you believe it…”
You folks have slipped way past pathetic. And I say this in astonishment, not anger. You spent eight years attacking everything Clinton did. Then Eight years worshipping everything Bush did. Now, three months into Obama’s tenure, you’re back in attack mode. It’s the double standard that astonishes me. I mean, even if Obama *were* attacking Bush at every turn–which he is not–you folks are already committed to this being a legitimate political strategy. But, fact is, Obama is going out of his way NOT to attack Bush. You’ve got to face facts–Bush was a terrible, terrible president. He left us in a ditch. Obama has tiptoed around the issue, mentioning about 1/100th of what he could legitimately mention about the disaster Bush left him.
Seriously. Grow up. This is a democracy. Sometimes you lose. We put up with your horrific guy, and didn’t complain about it until his idiocy and incompetence could no longer be ignored. You *start out* in attack dog mode, no matter what Democrat is elected. Surely even you realize, at some level, how pathetic that is.
In fact, as the Seinfeld show was supposed to be about nothing, it was really about how self-absorbed people get when they get bogged down in jobs that have no serious consequences to others, like most of us have. Its humor comes from our ability to laugh at our own foolishness.
This comparison to the Obama administration, is apt. Obama hadn’t had a serious job, with real consequences, before getting elected. And, he appears to be tackling the job much like Costanza would: No lie is too big; danger is not real unless it affects me, personally; there is always a way to weasel out if the situation gets too serious…
I would prefer to be watching this comedy as a sitcom episode…
You folks have slipped way past pathetic. And I say this in astonishment, not anger. You spent eight years WORSHIPING everything Clinton did. Then Eight years ATTACKING everything Bush did. Now, three months into Obama’s tenure, you’re back in WORSHIP mode. It’s the double standard that astonishes me.
There, fixed it for ya!
Obviously Winston doesn’t remember a certain bit of scuffling and litigation that went on for a couple of months or so immediately after the Bush/Gore election in 2000. Obviously Winston doesn’t remember all the cries and whining from the Dems/Left about how Bush “stole” the election. 9/11 shut a lot of that up, but the fact is that the complaining about Bush started about 1.6 seconds after the SCOTUS issued its decision.
So go peddle that bunk somewhere else, Mr. Smith, because it ain’t selling here.
Funny, the only folks here, who appear to be prattling on about the election, are fans of Obama.
This is a story about a fictitious man who, does not take his job seriously, and the similarities to George Costanza…
Now if i can only master the use of commas, I’d be set…
This is not new. I’ve been saying this for 8 yrs – the Dems would wake up, read the morning paper and see what W. had done, and do and say the exact opposite EVERY DAY FOR 8 YEARS!!!
Winston: You misspoke. We live in a DEMOCRACY, where ALL parties views are supposed to be heard. Not a FACIST STATE like the one you live in, which seeks to destroy those who even slightly disagree with your viewpoint, including the use of COURTS instead of DEBATES in a REPUBLIC GOVERNMENT (you need to take a course in [real, not Marxist] AMERICAN HISTORY).
We no longer subscribe to MSM services, so we effectively shut off their propaganda.
We don’t need trolls like you taking up our blog space which is used for sharing IDEAS, not IDEOLOGY.
Go elsewhere unless you want to participate in real debate, not distortion, name-calling, and emotionalism.
Why haven’t more people realized that Obama is educated but not intelligent? This is more like the Wizard of Oz or Charlie McCarthy than George Constanza. At least George had a sense of history to know what road to follow. Someone pulls the strings and Obama speaks.
Winston Smith:
George Bush did not attack Clinton. Not even when it turned out that a good deal of the intel gathered when Clinton was president was wrong, Bush never went out in public and attacked Clinton. He did not attack him for not going after Osama either. It never happened. There were Republicans who criticized Clinton, that is for sure…but the kind of tacky back stabbing self serving finger pointing juvenile blame game we have seen out of the Obama administration did not happen in Bush’s.
I don’t think Bush was a terrible terrible president. He had a 90% approval rating at one time and he won 2 terms. When the Democrats took control of Congress the Dow was up, unemployment was down and the deficit was $160 billion dollars. Look at it now, at this rate we will be a third world country by the time Obama finishes his first and I hope only term.
LOL. Virtually nobody ever worshipped Clinton, you half-wit. For chrissake, Dems pretty much had an accurate view of the guy. He had his virtues, and overall did a fairly good job. But, as we know, he had his vices, too.
Liberals just aren’t, in general, as zombified, brain-washed and group-think-ified as y’all are. I mean, it happens, but you guys have just become downright laughable.
Everybody loves Obama because he’s smart, knowledgeable and honest. It’s what we ought to *expect* of our presidents…but he looks like some amazing genius largely only by comparison to Dubya.
But more to the point. Look at the comments above. It’s like somebody taught a bunch of third-graders to type. Do folks around these parts really reason like that, or is it some elaborate joke?
Someguy hits one important point on the head: lots of folks on your side of the aisle won’t even listen to nor read anything that isn’t specifically tailored to your political prejudices anymore.
Me, I go around to conservative sites all the time looking for insights.
But I gotta say…its like the American right is slowly, slowly swirling down the toilet.
Seriously. It’s not too late. Surely there’s some bit of you, perhaps deep down inside, that realizes that you’ve shut yourself up in your dogmatism so effectively that you are now almost entirely insulated from facts and reason.
Surely? Surely….?….
Winston:
That was obnoxious. It really was. I made an obvious point. At one time George Bush had an approval rating of 90%, he won two terms in office. Obviously he was not terrible terrible.
As for Obama, I do not see knowledgable. I see a man who performs for the cameras. I see a man who can barely complete a sentence without a teleprompter. I see a man who did nothing at all during his time in the Senate to deal with or address any of our more pressing problems.
He just talked.
Everybody does not love Obama, the very fact that you could say that tells us a lot about you. You have simply decided to demonize the opposition and when that fails, refuse to acknowledge the fact that there is one.
We put up with your horrific guy, and didn’t complain about it until his idiocy and incompetence could no longer be ignored.
I seem to remember something about lawsuits and hanging chads and blocking nominees until June. Funny how memory plays tricks. I guess you couldn’t ignore it after January 21, 2001.
Terrye, he’s not obnoxious. Little kids acting like little kids are just amusing. It’s what they do.
“Everybody loves Obama because he’s smart, knowledgeable and honest. ”
Speak for yourself. His approval rating is dropping daily. Most people still like him but fewer and fewer approve of his policies. Most people think govt is getting too big. More than half of Dems think the tea parties were a good idea.
if you knew anything about his past you would know he’s not honest. This is the first honest election he ever won, and he did some illegal dishonest things to get elected, but I think he won by a large enough margin that whatever vote fraud his pet election workers in ACORN committed they didn’t put him over the top. But they tried.
His present neither. he has said more than once that economists agree with his economic policies. over 200 of them inc many economics professors and several Nobel prize winners signed a letter to him saying they think his economic policies are bad for the country. So either he isn’t knowledgeable, or he isn’t honest.
He said he would meet with Achmadinejad without preconditions. then he said he never said that. Biden, acknowledged plaigarist, said he never said it. Dudes, it’s on video.
I could go on, but research Obama’s Chicago political past, it’s not pretty. Or research all his attempted cabinet appointments this year. Not pretty.
But you’re the kind of person who gets swept up in the charisma of a smooth-talking good-looking charlatan and you think you are intellectual and sophisticated.
I seem to remember a poll after the election that stated the majority of Obama voters thought the Republicans were still running Congress. Obama likes them that way, uninformed and loyal.
Seriously? Those are your points?
You honestly think that trying to get the votes counted in Fla 2000 was somehow illegitimate? Look, the Dems should have put up MORE of a fuss about the attempt to finalize an election without counting crucial votes. But the important point for our purposes is that liberals basically backed off of Bush despite his attempt to, in effect, steal an election. They squawked less after the disputed election of 2000 than you guys are squawking now about an indisputably legitimate electoral win. (Though to be honest, some of them squawked about Ohio 2004, and that was ridiculous.)
Bush’s 90% approval rating came after 9/11. So that hardly counts. What really counts is the final approval rating, which was, of course, the lowest ever recorded. Face it–he may have been the worst president ever.
And if you object to smooth-talking, good-looking charlatans, then I expect you object to Ronald Reagan? He really didn’t have any actual intellectual heft. Obama, on the other hand, is obviously intelligent (note: he went to Harvard law, and was the editor of the law review). He’s smarter than you are, and smarter than I am. You may not like his politics, but if you deny his intelligence, you’re living in a fantasy world. (Reagan, on the other hand, was a B-movie actor…)
Seriously, guys. These arguments aren’t even vaguely plausible. *No one* makes arguments as bad as yours unless they’ve already got dogmatic conclusions and are frantically trying to flail about for reasons to bolster what they already believe.
I beseech thee: try to be at least minimally objective about these matters.
Winston Smith: What exactly has OPbama accomplished since he took office? Appointed (well, tried to appoint) a selection of, ah, ethically challenged pols to his cabinet, reneged on a bunch of campaign promises, contradicted himself (“Let’s give away lots of money and lower the deficit”), read speeches from teleprompters (on one occasion the wrong speech). So far, the _evidence_ suggests that he’s an empty suit, Jimmy Crter with a better speaking voice. Of course, he still has time to turn things around and accomplish something (as Reagan did with the Cold War, as Bush did in Iraq and Afghanistan), but bowing down and worshiping him because he mouths the shibboleths of liberalism does not speak well for the intellectual integrity of liberals
John Hillery:
How come you folks keep saying, despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary, that we can’t yet judge Bush to be a failure, but that he can only be judged by (distant future) history…yet you can somehow judge that Obama is a failure after three months?
No matter how disastrous Bush’s tenure, you refuse to judge him a failure; and, let’s face it, no matter how successful Obama is, you’ll never judge him a success.
So…why not just admit that your a dogmatist on this point, and stop pretending that truth matters to you?
OsamaHusseinIslamObama 2012′
(the terrorist/pirates choice)
-It’s never to early to campaign-
That is all.
Ah, Winston. Still happily working for MiniTrue I see. Just wait till you find out you’re really Emmanuel Goldstein.
LGMZdX fnfznhxraatk, [url=http://ffaviooajgtj.com/]ffaviooajgtj[/url], [link=http://gtyofhrebktc.com/]gtyofhrebktc[/link], http://xjuqjuyadeth.com/