Compelling Story or Too Much Information?

Huh? This is soooooooo stupid as if these personal narratives JUST started with the Black dude and the Hispanic lady.

Ronald Reagan - former movie star known for his portrayal of rugged individualism in sunny California and in movies - uses same to stand up to the evil empire and liberals run amok. Remember Reagan Democrats right?

George Bush 41 - well, he probably didn't have a compelling narrative other than I'm the next one in line.

Bill "Raw Dog" Clinton - the man from "Hope" who will serve as the bridge to the 21st Century raised in poverty; dad beat up mom; so "I know and feel your pain"

George Bush 43 - entitled spoiled and stupid who's narrative as man from Texas, owner of baseball teams, meant somehow that he was best prepared for the executive wing. His narrative was about being a compassionate conservative because he battled alcoholism and found Jesus - didn't cheat on his wife and would bring a new moral standing to the country because of his Faith.

I can't believe the dumb stuff that actually makes it on the Post these days.

We need a white male justice, because his judgment is superior to a Latina "who hasn't had that experience."

This is truly shameful. Since when have our elected officials NOT drawn on and used personal history?

I hate to say it, but it feels as if a double standard is being used for our new AFRICAN AMERICAN President and one of his HISPANIC appointeees.

I hope I am wrong... BUT..Hmmmmm.... The writing is on the wall.

How ironic.

This is absurd.

The headline actual claims that Obama and Sotomajor "are guilty" and then goes on to ask "is this wrong"!!!!!!!

How stupid does the post think its readers are?

Well, for one, if a candidate/nominee has a compelling personal story to tell that bears on his or her ability to identify with the electorate that exists outside the top one percent (i.e., GWB's "Base"), then, why not?

Second, if a candidate doesn't put his own story forward, you can rest assured that the political opposition will do it for him, and it will not be flattering.

Finally, does anyone really think a person can be elected to public office purely on professional competence? Dream on.

(I can hardly wait for Gingrich to announce his run for President. Now HIS is a story that needs telling!)

Typically, this level of politician doesn't make their backgrounds public - the press does. So if you are gong to ask the question truthfully, it should be aimed toward the media - not the candidates.

Yes, what is new about this? Ole' Abe, the rail splitter (self educated by reading by the light from a coal oil lamp), I cannot tell a lie George Washington, Tippecanoe and Tyler too, win one for the Gipper Regan (life guard during the summers--that was real cogent), etc. Since when have politicians not drawn on their backgrounds to gain support? I guess it is OK for old white guys; however, we apparently don't want to hear personal success stories from people of color demonstrating their strength of character.

Well they might as well get their version out before the media starts the spin. This is a silly question since regardless the public will be subjected to a record of every bowel movemet since birth. Politicians get in trouble when they try to create a persona that doesn't stand up to scrutiny e.g. Sarah Palin

I find it interesting that some readers turn this into a racet-based issue. In a post-racism era, everything should be treated on an equal footing. A Latina is not more and no less qualified to be Supreme than an Old White Male. And vice-verse. Learn to live with it -- that kind of background-neutral basis is what civil rights leaders have fouight for for decades.

More to the point, politicians who use their personal background to pander for votes or to shield themselves from criticism shouldn't. I only need to know enough about personal opinions, not background.

America has a history of not just Racism but Violent Racism! It's 2009 and out of 110 Supreme Court Justices only 4 have been Minorities or Women. Actually 2 of each. Where the white males more qualified or is it Racism? Stop running from the truth!

I have no problem with Sotomayor's experience informing her decisions, as long as they do not take precedence over the law in her decisions.

I find it interesting that we know much more about Sotomayor than we do about Obama. We only have his word on his school accomplishments, no records. And no medical records, either. He is the first president in recent memory to not inform the electorate of his full credentials. Given the slimness of his resume, I would think that the more information the better would be a more politic approach. Unless he has something to hide in them. And didn't he promise a more transparent and accountable administration? So much for transparency, eh?

It's sad that the Washington Post has gone from being a great newspaper that functioned as a check on abuses of power in Washington, to a fan rag for the Obama administration. So, Mr. Bradlee, any chance the Post is going to go back to its roots and start doing real journalism again?? I have been reading this paper since 1960, and I am saddened to see the decline in journalistic standards in recent years. Please go back to doing your job as the nation's capitol's leading paper. Lately, you have been basically a cheerleading section for this administration. Being critical of the administration is not treason, as some would say, but the sign of the fourth estate doing its job. So do it, already!!

Since when has a leader's personal history NOT been a part of their public persona?

The only thing not part of a public person's official history is what they do behind closed doors at home. And that assumes the shades were drawn and the lights were out.

Everyone has a backstory; and everyone's personal experience affects their decision making. Elected or appointed officials are no more or less "different" from the rest of the population on this score. We all carry a certain amount of baggage into adulthood.

It need not be racial; it might be, for example, a physical handicap, or debilitating illness.

I would simply urge the Administration not to make appointments based solely on the United Colors of Benetton - but to take many other factors into consideration as well.

Gee, where would John McCain be without his "riveting" personal story?

There is no harm in telling personal stories to the whole world especially when the achiever is from an unprivileged background. Their stories help the world in understanding why people from lower stratum of society, despite being intelligent and hardworking, are not able to make it to the top too often. It is actually 'something' appealing in the stories of these high achievers that motivate the struggling ones and make them believe that their hardwork and untiring efforts would certainly pay off one day.
It is a paradox that if the inspiring stories come from the privileged class achiever, they are treated with respect and considered pearls of wisdom and source of motivation for the rest of the world.

If personal history were part of every capaign southern republicans could not elect their hypocrite, immoral NEO-CON criminals, and the ethically bereft hypocrites like David Vitter.

Therefore I say its great!

W have living human beings, not computers, as our leaders and all of them have personal backgrounds that color their perceptions. All divided opinions demonstrate that pure objectivity is impossible even when applying constitutional law. The presidential election showed that Americans in general strongly approve of Obama with his personal background, hence, his biases, and I personally--a mature white male--like his nominee for the Supreme Court with her background.

cmacdonald1

Unless I'm missing something, the panel of experts on "leadership" the Washington Post chose to judge the actions and professional behavior of our first black president and first Latina Supreme Court nominee is a) all male, and b) 8 of 9 are white. I think the make up of your panel tells me everything I need to know regarding the institutional biases and antique thinking going on at the WaPo.

As a politician, the less you share about your background, the more you have to hide in my opinion.

What an absurd question...as if there were any choice in our manic 24 hour news cycle where politicians who might try to maintain even a bit of personal space and boundaries are hounded by a media often unwilling to actually cover news and, therefore, constantly looking for an alternative. Instead, how about a question with regards to the propriety and validity of repeated questions about personal faith and religious preferences?

Consider - if you will - whether Abraham Lincoln, likely our greatest President, would have been elected had the media made repeated demands that he first profess how he pursued his faith and relationship to his god and then used those answers as fodder for constant discussion and attacks. As a man of truly deep faith who might have been considered more of an agnostic in practice, think Lincoln would have been elected by these increasingly bizarre criteria? As it happened, Lincoln's 'personal history' was very much on the table and helped him win election...twice...thank god.

Personal histories are important inasmuch as they can help provide critical insight beyond the stump speech or press release. And our history of considering the personal story's relevance started with George Washington. But, once yet again, the question posed here seems little more than a distracter and is not even the right question. What I would like to see is a forum which solicits readers' views on the constant demand to profess one's personal faith and religious affiliation.

And I'll start......No, one's faith is not only personal but often is not truly representable through sound bites. We also know that verbal self reports are actually an often highly unreliable form of communication open to manipulation by the speaker, listener, and/or person relaying that information. Such repeated questions are little more than a diversion from what really is important and a pander to a small but astoundingly loud cross section of this country.

I would much prefer to see how politicians conduct themselves and how responsibly they use their political office. I would much prefer to see their 'faith' in action and in practice rather than simply more words used to fill column inches and/or TV air time. I would prefer to see how a man or woman of true faith behaves and handles power rather than the current trend towards those who protest far too much while being pure hypocrites in their actual conduct. That is what I would prefer...

What do you think?

Mr. Gardner: Once again, a white male makes a plea that white males be treated equally when white males have held favored status in this country since its beginning. Every white male candidate uses his personal background to build a relationship w/ the electorate; e.g., John McCain and his years as a P.O.W.; George W. Bush, and his link with his father and, therefore, his qualifications for leadership (forget the Texas governorship when he was merely a figurehead. Get a grip, Mr Gardner, and get down off your high horse.

Everyone has their history - it is their essence and they are the person they are 'right now' because of their history and experience. I think it's good to share a bit of that background because it makes leaders seem more real however I don't think it's necessary to reveal all.

Merydith Willoughby

Our'ROOTS'do force us to reveal ourselves,they make us biased..

They should do it but with extreme care.Mr.Obama's speech makes the muslim world happier but some prejudiced christians are burning with rage!

They should do it but with extreme care.Mr.Obama's speech makes the muslim world happier but some prejudiced christians are burning with rage...

Is it just me or does anyone else notice that KEITH-O on msnbc never has anyone that disagrees with him as a guest ? ...No contradictory viewpoint , everyone on countdown and "BROWS" Maddow are like little yes men ...hmmmm reminds me of Papa Joe ! Although I might not always agree with O'Reilly I'd have to say he's got brass H.Clinton , Mike Moore , and Whoopi , Hey KEITH-O where's your brass??? I Richard Wolffe KEITH-O's version of MINI_ME !!! If Hannity is a coward why did he have C. Grodin confront him ....2 weeks ago KEITH-O said we had nothing to fear from the 6 terrorists arrested i NYC because one was crazy & urinated in a jar HEY KEITH-O the Unibomber lived in a shack so whats your point stupid !