US senior editor and long-time Atlantic reader Henry Seltzer passes along news of a six-page Obama family profile with the headline: Michelle Obama: Why Barack Loves Her
Excerpt will be posted today on Usmagazine.com.
« Here's Your Bounce: Obama Up In PA, FL, OH | Main | Obama's National Security Working Group »
The Obamas and US
18 Jun 2008 09:14 am
Comments (26)
First the Britney cover story, now a link to Us magazine.
Man, this place is going downhill fast.
Jesus, the Obama camp must have some awful data in regards to Michelle to have to overhaul her image in such a dramatic way lately.
Good, they need to roll out some unabashed positive propaganda to combat the outright lies that have been spread about Michelle.
The GOP got away with it for the last time in 04.
JS: probably because focus groups thought that Barack was married to Omarosa
Marc - what is your comments policy these days? I noticed that you disabled comments on the posting below this one (about the PA/OH/FL poll bounces) and the posting above this one (Obama's national security advisors). Is there some reason for this? Or is it completely arbitrary?
I enjoy your comments sections - I think it is one of the more intelligent and sane comments community admist the cesspool of political blogs - and I hope you decide to keep them open for all entries, like Yglesias. However, if you disagree, then I hope you take Sullivan's lead and disable comments altogether, and publish what you consider to be insightful comments and/or dissents. But the current scheme is baffling and, frankly, has the appearance of selective censorship.
Thanks.
Ah well, no comments, time to stop reading. Truth to lunch: you're a fat fuck in man love with mccain.
He'll treat you rough marc. But you'll enjoy it.
Marc -
I have to agree with a previous poster: turning your comments section on and off arbitrarily TOTALLY smacks of selective censorship.
As a political blogger, I find it a bit absurd that you can't take a little friendly disagreement from your readers. Please come up with a uniform policy, explain it explicitly to us, and move on.
If you decide to disable comments going forward, have the guts to announce it to your readers.
Thanks!
"Criticizing the policy is an appropriate way to approach it if you're an Obama supporter, but why begrudge the man for changing his mind as conditions (our general awareness of climate change, the Iraq war, gas prices, etc) have changed?"
Compare this to the Iraq post with Obama in 2004.
Turn off all the comments Marc, because whatever ones are left, people like me will post your huge inconsistency, bias, and frankly, bullshit.
And also - you were that shocked by Russert? he was only heavily overweight. You're morbidly obese - you won't make it to 59 at that weight - and if Obama wins, you probably won't make it to 2009.
Guys, personal attacks against the blogger are ridiculously unnecessary. There's a ton of stuff on which we could substantively critique Marc.
But on the whole, if Michelle Obama was in fact toxic to Obama's candidacy, the campaign wouldn't want them to be depicted on a magazine cover together. And I'm glad Obama is defending her-- attacking the wives of Democratic candidates is becoming a tradition, and Obama can stop it.
Ambinder, you gigantic gasbag, I'm sincerely delighted that you've taken my advice and disabled comments. With any luck, your traffic and presence will soon plunge to levels more congruent with your competence as a journalist.
Cut off the comments again, eh, Ambinder? Sheesh.
Whoa. Easy goes it folks. I have disagreed with Marc on a number of posts in the past and I have expressed these disagreements in comments. There is plenty of room for substantive disagreement but there is no place for personal ad hominem attacks. Frankly, if you're going to make these sort of comments I don't really blame Marc for shutting down commentary. Let's keep to the issues and point out where Marc is doing things right and wrong, in our opinions.
Okay, it's just weird that I can comment all I want on US magazine, but not on Madeleine Albright appearing in the National Security Working Group.
I have disagreed with Marc on a number of posts in the past and I have expressed these disagreements in comments. There is plenty of room for substantive disagreement but there is no place for personal ad hominem attacks.
Without comments, there isn't a place for substantive disagreement either. Ad hominem attacks are deplorable and counter-productive, and should be discouraged by all readers. And the technology exists where a repeat offender can be banned. But Marc hasn't indicated that there's been an unacceptable increase in personal attacks. In fact, Marc hasn't indicated anything at all. The latest suspension of comments comes without any explanation whatsoever.
As a previous reader pointed out, comments are useful for highlighting questionable assumptions or inconsistent reasoning in the author's blog post. So, when Marc suggests that McCain's recent "evolution" on the wisdom of off-shore drilling is not a flip-flop, but rather a change in position reflecting a change in circumstances, it's fair to question why he didn't apply this logic when analyzing Obama's positions on Iraq between 2004 and now. Likewise, when Marc writes that McCain's comments suggesting that the date of troop return from Iraq "isn't that important" must be taken in context (a point I agree with), it's still fair to question why Marc posted no less than nine times on "Bittergate", or why he had five separate posts on Obama's VP vetter.
Marc, the personal attacks are terrible and an unfortunate biproduct of open discourse on the Internet. But if you can't take substantive disagreement, and worse yet, you won't even explain to your readers why you've switched comments off again, fine. I'll respond in kind and stop reading.
Marc,
Since you only allow comments selectively, this post is off-topic. You really appear to be in the tank for McCain. The guy has a problem in that he has reversed a lot of his positions recently as he's geared up to run for the presidency. He's gone from maverick to doctrinaire Republican and a lot of his reasons are so transparent (tax cuts, immigration, Falwell) that to see him change yet another position at a time when he needs to shore up the base isn't biased, it's deductive. I wanted to give McCain the benefit of the doubt, but he's making it very hard. He's a flip-flopper. Come to terms with it.
He doesn't have to enable comments at all. It says nothing about his ability to deal with "dissent". Most bloggers don't read our comments anyway.
As for Michelle Obama, her story about a "working class" childhood is a big lie. Her dad had a cushy sinecure job that was bringing in nearly $50K/year (before overtime) in the 70s. If that's true, then she can spare us the yammer about her poor, poor life.
People are rather obviously deliberately attacking Ambinder just to get him to turn off comments again. There's no sane explanation otherwise, since none of the other Atlantic bloggers who allow commments get anywhere near this level of vitriol from commenters.
"People are rather obviously deliberately attacking Ambinder just to get him to turn off comments again."
What tipped you off? The fact that I've stated, repeatedly, I was hoping for exactly such a result? You're almost as big (ha!) a nincompoop as Ambinder.
Golly, Cal, if that isn't a totally respectable and reliable journalistic outlet I don't know what is!
This just in: Aliens secretly control the Atlantic Monthly through the p key on our laptops. It's true!
Whatever the contempt some posters have shown Marc, its less than the contempt Marc has shown the remaining posters, who consistently posted insight, usually more so than Marc's original post.
This, along with the fact that he was getting called on specifics virtually every other post I think is the reason rather than comments about his shape.
To not bother to even address it shows petulance and arrogance to his readers. It that it ironically matches the behaviour of the candidate he is accused of favoring.
The inconsistent comment policy bums me out.
Either leave them on, like Yglesias, or turn them off -- like Fallows and Sullivan. I think the blog could work either way.
I totally understand how awful it must be to read rude things from random, unhinged strangers. But I think you have to pick your poison. You're just going to continue to make everyone angry if you turn them on and off, because that seems pretty babyish.
If you can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen and let an intern take over.
http://obsidianwings.blogs.com/obsidian_wings/2008/06/so-called-quote.html
not just blog comments now Marc. Real blogs.
"Marc is in the bag for McCain."
"Marc is in the bag for Obama."
When both sides attack, he must be doing something right.
I'm one who attended several Iowa events that Marc and other bloggers attended. Nobody got the feel for the events as well as Marc did. I don't care who he supports as long as he continues to cover the race the way he has.
I'd like to see comments continue, but given the comments above I can't blame him if they are gone.
I guess now I'm in the bag for Marc!
Steve K,
Your argument is somewhat undermined in that virtually everyone says he is in the bag for McCain, and virtually nobody says he is for Obama. Pubilus has called him on it on the link above.
I might have missed it, but I didnt see anyone in this post claiming he was pro-Obama, and certainly not with the quote you use above.
And it wasnt about him supporting or not supporting - (MY, RD, AS are all partisan), it was his pretending to be objective when he's nothing of the sort.
| 
I know, the Hogans are totally messed up, right?
Posted by Ray | June 18, 2008 9:33 AM