Taking the Gloves Off

Via Ambinder, Walter Shapiro says that "Every time Obama takes off the gloves, he immediately feels compelled to lace them up again." This is such a frequently used metaphor that it had never occurred to me to think about what it's specifically referring to. But that makes sense: boxing gloves. The problem is that, as I understand it, you can actually do more damage to someone wearing the gloves, since the gloves primarily serve to protect your hand while still letting you inflict incredible head-trauma on your adversary.

If I were a more clever writer, I'd now explain why that's exactly like Obama's campaign strategy but the boring truth is that he seems to be hoping that John Edwards' aggressive attacks on Clinton will wind up doing his job for him (and he just might be right).

Comments

I kind of wonder if the Edwards' campaign theory runs something like this:

(1) Attack HRC, and watch votes go to Obama.
(2) Stay in play and wait.
(3) Trust Iowans to be (a) disgusted with HRC, (b) uncomfortable on electability grounds with Obama, and (c) comfortable moving to Edwards because of the intermediate support for Obama (that is, Edwards isn't being immediately rewarded for his negative behavior).

Are the attacks--such as they are, which seems not much--earlier than would be usual?

Posted by SomeCallMeTim | November 13, 2007 5:48 PM

You'd be wrong. The padding on the gloves cushions the blows, causing less damage to the boxer's hands and their target. Wikipedia and all that even explains the physics behind it.

Certain gloves can protect the hand while still causing damage, but they aren't standard boxing gloves. And I think the only gloves that are laced up are the standard heavily padded boxing gloves.

Posted by Alex | November 13, 2007 5:51 PM

This is of course why street toughs of all nationalities, ethnicities and cultures make sure to carry a pair of gloves with them to insure that they inflict maximum damage...

Posted by Scyon | November 13, 2007 5:52 PM

Alex is right, boxing gloves help. When Thailand introduced gloves to Muay Thai, the deaths went down significantly. Previously, they had wrapped their hands with hemp twine, which tended to draw a lot of blood and didn't reduce the impact.

Posted by fostert | November 13, 2007 5:57 PM

Even though I know it comes from boxing, I never thought it made any sense -- you can't just "take off" boxing gloves, they're held fast with laces and tape. Hockey gloves, on the other hand, slip right off, which is generally done when it's time to fight.

Posted by Aaron S. Veenstra | November 13, 2007 6:01 PM

I think the reason boxing gloves are said to lead to worse damage is that they allow boxers to take more hits to the head without being knocked down.

Posted by neil | November 13, 2007 6:02 PM

I always assumed this was a hockey metaphor, and I still think it is. You drop the gloves when it's time to fight. I think this author screwed up.

Posted by Wilson | November 13, 2007 6:02 PM

I also though it was hockey. Or something from that genteel period of the past where gentlemen would throw down a glove to signal they wanted to duel. However, it's entirely possible I'm drawng the second scenario from an old Disney cartoon that featured Goofy.

Posted by cajunpunk | November 13, 2007 6:11 PM

I think Obama is taking some shots to placate the media, who insist that he do so and give him bad coverage if he doesn't and better coverage if he does, but he really does just want to draw a contrast with her, so he mutes them and refers to her only obliquely.

What Edwards is doing I can't say. I can't see any evidence that it is working for him or that it will work in the end. Maybe he wants another shot at VP for Obama, which would pretty much be our best ticket ever.

Don't forget the Romney/McCain ads against Hillary in New Hampshire and probably Iowa. Though unintentional, those are probably helping Obama as much as anything Edwards is saying. It's not necessarily that they make primary voters think that Hillary is a tax-and-spend liberal, but they remind voters of how much the GOP hates the Clintons and how annoying it will be to have to relive the 1990s and listen to all the rightwing BS for another 8 years.

Posted by bob | November 13, 2007 6:11 PM

That's very true and it is the boring truth, Obama hopes that Edwards does the dirty job for him.

One of the things that worry me about Obama is the possibility that he might peak early. Right now I am expecting the Iowa polls to show Clinton falling out of first. I think she's beat up bad, the JJ dinner hurt and it will happen sooner than later. I don't want my candidate however to peak one month before election day... I prefer a surge in the past weeks so as to maximize impact.

Posted by Nick Kaufman | November 13, 2007 6:12 PM

Though in modern times the hockey metaphor makes more sense historically I suspect that 'dropping the gloves' had more to do with the outright bloodshed and bone and teeth breaking of 19th century bare knuckles prize fights. There is a particularly graphic depiction in Clavell's novel ' Tai Pan'

Posted by Bruce Webb | November 13, 2007 6:33 PM

It's both hockey and boxing. Taking gloves off allows you to really beat the crap out of someone.

Posted by right | November 13, 2007 6:39 PM

It's definitely a hockey metaphor, not boxing. First thing two hockey players who are about to fight do are drop their gloves on the ice, because hockey gloves are big, bulky, and designed to protect from a stick check, not for punching. Think of all the hockey gloves on the ice in the old NHL brawl days (circa 1978).

And yes, you lace up hockey gloves when you put them back on.

Posted by rashomon | November 13, 2007 6:39 PM

I had always thought hockey also, but now the boxing connection makes more sense to me. It goes along with metaphors about a politician being a "bare-knuckled fighter".

Posted by Dan Kervick | November 13, 2007 6:42 PM

I'd assume the ice hockey metaphor, though with a historical nod to an era where gentlemen wore gloves, which in turn reaches back to 'throwing down the gauntlet'.

But those kinds of gloves aren't laced, which makes Shapiro's attempt to find a more elaborate term for 'puts them on again' fall flat.

Posted by pseudonymous in nc | November 13, 2007 6:43 PM

I don't know anything about which gloves you take off or lace up for fighting, and I don't care -- at all -- about Obama's strategy around Edwards' attacks on Clinton. But I do appreciate how gracefully this thread combines the two topics.

Posted by lemuel pitkin | November 13, 2007 7:01 PM

Responding to Tim's question, when Edwards attacks Clinton in picturesque ways, he gets covered and the media can't make it into a merely Obama-Clinton story. And when Edwards attacks on topics that are popular among the base -- like Kyl-Lieberman -- he probably wins more votes than he loses.

Posted by Neil the Ethical Werewolf | November 13, 2007 7:09 PM

No no no. This is not a hockey metaphor. It's boxing, period. You take the gloves off to inflict more damage.

Posted by tinisoli | November 13, 2007 7:16 PM

I think it's a bit muddled, as taking off the gloves could make the blows sharper and harder, but I don't think it's recommended that you strike a chin with your bare knuckles - worse for the chin than the glove would be, yes, but a lot worse for your knuckles.

Posted by Warren Terra | November 13, 2007 7:40 PM

No no no. This is not a hockey metaphor. It's boxing, period. You take the gloves off to inflict more damage.

Yup. And the amount of effort required to remove a boxing glove underlines the deliberate malice of a fighter who does it.

Hockey players take their gloves off whenever they fight; boxers take their gloves off when they want the other guy to get seriously hurt.

Posted by southpaw | November 13, 2007 8:42 PM

Does anyone really think this metaphor originated with hockey? It's gotta be boxing, the older sport. And it's the opposite of "handle with kid gloves," another old-timey phrase. (Kid, as in baby goat.)

Posted by Bill | November 13, 2007 9:08 PM

The canonical example of this would be the scene in Million Dollar Baby, when Morgan Freeman annoys the boxer with a gloved hand to draw him in, then cold-cocks him with an ungloved hand.

Posted by snoopy | November 13, 2007 9:24 PM

Boxing - referring to the early 19th century (Regency/Napoleonic period) when men commonly wore gloves and took them off before engaging in the "sweet science".

Posted by cb | November 13, 2007 11:26 PM

What Shapiro doesn't get is that Obama uses jujutsu, not boxing, meaning he is all about using his attackers' momentum and energy against them.

Posted by DTM | November 13, 2007 11:51 PM

Not that long ago Matt wanted men to give up the vote. Now he wants cheerleaders in more sports? He isn't fighting with his girlfriend or something I hope.

Posted by aleks | November 14, 2007 7:30 AM

I agree with DTM if one insists that what any of the Dem candidates is doing is *attacking*.

Eastern arts do display a much more deft and subtle method of confrontation than the knuckle dragging *arts* of boxing or hockey... ;0

Course, all that assumes that differentiation is *attacking*. Rudy attacks. Rove attacks. Romney has bordered on attacks with his Osama, Obama nonsense.

What the Dems are doing...all of them...is bringing policy differences to light. How does what any of them are doing remotely compare to the known *attackers* listed above?

Why is Dodd, the most vocal in the last debate, not accused of *attacking*?

Posted by G Davis | November 14, 2007 1:57 PM

Way to drive off your Canadian readers! It's definitely derived from hockey. And it was used beautifully in the Menomena song "Rotten Hell" when they sing "well it's high time we step outside, drop the gloves and settle this like a man." Peep the (fantastic) video here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t0LIBCw8syA

Posted by Nordy | November 14, 2007 4:49 PM

1. It's definitely boxing
2. The high-road/low-road combo is definitely hurting Clinton and helping both Edwards and Obama with people who would support them anyway - each is being true to his style.

Posted by Phoebe | November 14, 2007 8:00 PM