Letters to the Editor
FredrickBernanke
Published Letters: 183 Editor's Choice: 9
-
When in Rome, Do as the Romans: Politics as Mud-wrestling
[Read the article: With Obama on the offensive, the Democratic campaigns trade attacks]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]The singular phenomenon that has become known as Barack Obama became such because a large segment of the (Democrat) voting public interpreted his words, his demeanor, his aura, even his physical presence as being something other than the typical politician's.
Ironically, he was seen as a White Knight astride a sturdy steed gazing down upon his mud-covered opponents. He was clean; they were not. Although obviously in the fray, he somehow seemed simultaneously above it. He alone was the non-scumbag of the bunch---his passionate desire was to win, not to destroy. Somehow, people could not envision him in some hotel room being counselled by such creatures as Rove or Carville or Penn or Rollins. Barack was clean, no steroids, no HGH. It was the other guys who were "juiced," not him.
Maybe Bill Clinton was correct after all when he described the Obama-phenomenon as "a fairytale."
If he suddenly decides to play on HRC's turf, he's giving up the home-field advantage. She and her team are the undisputed heavyweight champs of mud-wrestling. And maybe, in the final analysis, politics is the ultimate form of mud-wrestling. But perhaps a potential president needs a little dirt under his fingernails to handle the job he or she is seeking. And, if that is the reality, Barack must enter the ring.
As an idealistic, overly romantic fool, the White Knight scenario captures my heart. And yet, the pragmatic, realist side of me is not totally convinced that rolling in the dirt with dogs is the way Barack is going to win.
-
Who Has the Home-Field Advantage in a Mud-Wrestling Bout?
[Read the article: Let 'em duke it out]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]The singular phenomenon that has become known as Barack Obama became such because a large segment of the (Democrat) voting public interpreted his words, his demeanor, his aura, even his physical presence as being something other than the typical politician's.
Ironically, he was seen as a White Knight astride a sturdy steed gazing down upon his mud-covered opponents. He was clean; they were not. Although obviously in the fray, he somehow seemed simultaneously above it. He alone was the non-scumbag of the bunch---his passionate desire was to win, not to destroy. Somehow, people could not envision him in some hotel room being counselled by such creatures as Rove or Carville or Penn or Rollins. Barack was clean, no steroids, no HGH. It was the other guys who were "juiced," not him.
Maybe Bill Clinton was correct after all when he described the Obama-phenomenon as "a fairytale."
If he suddenly decides to play on HRC's turf, he's giving up the home-field advantage. She and her team are the undisputed heavyweight champs of mud-wrestling. And maybe, in the final analysis, politics is the ultimate form of mud-wrestling. But perhaps a potential president needs a little dirt under his fingernails to handle the job he or she is seeking. And, if that is the reality, Barack must enter the ring.
As an idealistic, overly romantic fool, the White Knight scenario captures my heart. And yet, the pragmatic, realist side of me is not totally convinced that rolling in the dirt with dogs is the way Barack is going to win.
-
@JosieOrtiz, With a Footnote on Dynasty-Politics
[Read the article: Let 'em duke it out]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]There is a difference between describing a phenomenon (Obama) and beleiving in a phenomenon. If you read my post carefully, you should notice that when I describe the public perception of him, nowhere do I state that that is my perception of him.
In fact, you yourself noted that the Bill "fairytale" remark was also in my post---does that mean I agree with it?
[Footnote: One opinion of mine that I will share with you is that I would never vote for HRC only because the thought of 28-yrs of Bush/Clinton/Bush/Clinton makes a mockery of our democratic system of government...we may as well have princes and emirs and sultans if we're going to limit the presidency to 2 families for decades.]
-
It is a F__k__g "Fairytale!" And a Sexy One at That.
[Read the article: Why do conservatives really find the Obama campaign "scary"?]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I like to write.
I am not partisan in any way.
I do not own a functioning TV.
Therefore, Obama-TV has not been something I follow.
I would not vote for HRC simply because the idea of 28-yrs of Bush/Clinton/Bush/Clinton makes a mockery of our democratic system of government. We may as well have princes and emirs and sheiks if we allow 2 families to govern the USA for decades.
Viewing this Obama presentation has so diminished him and his campaign in my mind that he too becomes unsupportable.
An entirely vacuous 3 minutes, primarily of attractive females spouting wannabe platitudes is as disgraceful an approach to campaigning as anything the Clintons have ever perpetrated upon the public.
As much as I loathe the cynicism embodied in Mark Penn of the Clinton organization ("Small is the new Big), at least her campaign uses Language to make its points. Obama's people apparently have adopted the "50 Cent" approach to presidential politics.
But those girls sure are sexy.
-
Maybe It Is a Fuckin' "Fairytale." And a Sexy One at That
[Read the article: Does "Obama Girl" help Obama?]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I am non-partison.
I do not own a functioning TV.
Therefore, Obama-TV has not been something I follow. Nor have I seen his YouTube promotions. (An error I will not repeat.)
I would not vote for HRC simply because the idea of 28-yrs of Bush/Clinton/Bush/Clinton makes a mockery of our democratic system of government. We may as well have princes and emirs and sheiks if we allow 2 families to govern the USA for decades.
Viewing this Obama presentation has so diminished him and his campaign in my mind that he too becomes unsupportable.
An utterly vacuous 3 minutes, of (primarily) attractive females purring pathetic platitudes is as disgraceful an approach to campaigning as anything the Clintons have ever perpetrated upon the public.
As much as I loathe the cynicism embodied in Mark Penn of the Clinton organization ("Small is the new Big), at least her campaign uses Language to make its points. Obama's people apparently have adopted this approach to presidential politics: Pure Form, No Content. Pretty faces. Bedroom eyes.
But those girls sure are sexy. And are gonna get him lotsa male votes.