Atticus Finch vs. Rooster Cogburn?

[maui9002]

In a post arguing that Barack Obama needs to show more righteous anger, Arianna Huffington compared Obama's persona to Gregory Peck's character Atticus Finch from "To Kill a Mockingbird" and McCain's persona (and Bush by extension) to a John Wayne type character, which I thought put the whole "experience" issue in perspective. Essentially, I'd prefer my President to be much more like Atticus Finch (humble, noble, eloquent, respected and respectful, and a righteous defender of the truth) than John Wayne (a fighter always willing to use his fists or his gun, courageous, fierce, and the epitome of masculinity). What we need today is Atticus Finch, not Rooster Cogburn.

[Overseas]

1. We needed the Geek rather than the Beer Guy in 2000 as well.

Imagine how much farther along we would be in alternative energy development by now... Sigh...

[SwampG8r]

2. cogburn was a drunk and a killer

but he was no asshole
dont insult cogburn like this please?

[Barack_America]

3. Atticus *sigh*. ...

Or should I say *swoon*

[DemocratSinceBirth]

4. If They Were Running For Pres I'd Put My Money On Rooster

Just as I would put my money on Texas Ranger or Jack Bauer against Mr. Rogers...

[jobycom]

5. hehe. Clever. But just since you started it, how about Obama as Philip Marlowe?

Bogart's Marlowe, in "The Big Sleep," tells a character (roughly) "I was educated at a university, but I can still speak English when I need to." He works through the plot with smarts and cunning, using guns or his fists only when someone else uses them first. He dives into the muck when he has to, but he doesn't become part of the muck.

That's the guy we need. Not Atticus, who could not relate to those around him, though he always stood on principle and fought the good fight. Not Marshall Cogburn, who moved in a land with no laws and needed only his fists and horse to win his battles. We need someone educated enough to understand the issues, but common enough to discuss them with voters. We need someone unafraid to use his fists or a gun if necessary, but who knows when they aren't necessary. We need someone who can take a beating if taking a beating gets him closer to his goals. We need someone with enough confidence that they don't have to swagger.

That's our winner. That was Clinton. That was JFK. That was Carter for a while. I think Obama can do that.

[maui9002]

6. Thanks for a thought provoking post

I was struck by Huffington's analogy after having a discussion with a McCain supporter yesterday who said something to the effect of "McCain's a fighter; and in a world full of people like Osama bin Laden and Putin, I want someone like McCain who's a fighter." It's pretty basic stuff, but gets it all wrong in my view. Barack Obama won't back down from any fight, but unlike McCain, he'll think before he enters the fray.

FYI: I may go rent the "The Big Sleep", which I've never seen, because of your post.

[jobycom]

7. Thanks. It's a good movie.

The chemistry between Bogart and Bacall in that one is electric. I think it's the best thing they did together, but I'm not an afficianado, and they were way before my time. Well, Bogart was. Bacall is still around, but I know her better as an older woman.

The thing about McCain is that the world is not full of Usama bin Ladens. They are there, as Clinton tried to explain to Bush in 2000, but a bit of preparation and they aren't as dangerous. What made UBL so dangerous was Bush's failure. So electing another president with Bush's mentality is likely to make the Bin Ladens more powerful. The Republican mentality on crime and foreign policy is to ignore it until it goes wrong, then scream at it. Come to think of it, that's how they handled Katrina, too. The Democratic strategy is to prevent the conditions that empower it, and to prepare for the events that slip through anyway. An ounce of Democratic prevention is worth a pound of Republican cure. But Republicans don't get it. They live in their own little cubicles and never notice anything until it enters their cubicle, and then they can't figure out how it got there, and they can't think of anything to do but scream. They always wait to long to fix things, and then the fix is too expensive. The old "don't fix the roof when it's sunny because the roof isn't leaking then." Democrats know when to fix the roof, and when to go after Obama type thugs. That's why things go smoother under Democrats.

But Republicans are so blinded they can't even see what they can't see.