Letters to the Editor
Uncle Fester
Published Letters: 1346 Editor's Choice: 12
-
@opus: Politicians, Movements and Myths
[Read the article: Obama advisor Power resigns]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Thanks for the thoughtful reply. You've left quite a bit on the table. Partially, I'm pushing back on what I consider sloppy cut-and-paste rhetoric that is really just a regurgitation of undigested taking points from either side. If I want to hear what Alexrod and/or Wolfson are saying, I can go to them directly.
Personally, I don't think Obama is portraying himself as the 'One'. He is saying, however, that Hillary's strategy is a continuation of the existing trench warfare style of political discourse and will not be revolutionary. It will be more of the same. Hillary's predilication to be fighter, and to be viewed as a fighter reinforces that opinion in my mind. I think there is more to politics than fight, fight, fight. And no plan survives contact with the enemy.
Hence to fight and conquer in all your battles is not supreme excellence; supreme excellence consists in breaking the enemy's resistance without fighting. Thus the highest form of generalship is to balk the enemy's plans; the next best is to prevent the junction of the enemy's forces; the next in order is to attack the enemy's army in the field; and the worst policy of all is to besiege walled cities.--SunTzu Art of War (http://classics.mit.edu/Tzu/artwar.html)
I do think it is useful for Obama's opponents to portray him as a silver-tongued charlatan, it's an easy way to discredit the man, and the message. Yes, the message sounds good, but he doesn't believe it himself, so don't fall for it. Drink our koolaid instead. ShawnWM likes to post here about how we've all been duped by the 'obamateur'. The End Is Near.
I also don't think Obama's politics are anything 'new', despite media hype, spinning, and counter spinning. It's really a move back to politics of former times, and avoiding the trash-first, scorched earth politics of today. It means you try to build consensus first, before fighting and you try to avoid the casual demonization of opponents. You save it for the really applicable cases. It doesn't mean you're a wuss and never fight, like some posters here seem to think.
I personally think that Obama has ambition and vanity just like any other politician. Duh. He has admitted to it. I think you have to be a little crazy to want to run for president in the first place. And there's no denying that anybody famous attracts the adulation of the masses, and that most famous people enjoy that attention, at least some of the time. But if you read Obama's book or listen to his speechs, you might come to the conclusion that Obama views generating a movement as a necessary precondition for getting anything done, certainly big projects like healthcare, and not merely as the ultimate ego stroke.
So I ask, do we need a movement to get anything done? Do the peasants need to grab their torches and pitchforks and take to the streets and strike fear into the hearts of politicians, or can we just stay home in a consumeristic fog and re-elect the incumbments and have them work it all out for our benefit? Do nothing and still have our change? That's what I don't understand. The dismissal of the need for a movement. After all, Hillary benefits from a movement.
Part of what we fear is the concentration of power and the gathering of the masses. And rightly so. I think this goes back to our early political DNA with the founding fathers and their distrust of human nature. A few hundred years of religious and feudal warfare in Europe left them cynical.
But it takes power to get things done.
-
@doc Texas "democracy"
[Read the article: Texas, can we please have a winner?]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Let's flip this around. How come the experienced, ready on day one, been there to Texas, done that, reality based, realpolitik candidate didn't wipe the floor with Obama's ass in Texas? Yes I'm being a little snarky. But her campaign has told me all those things. She should be kicking his ass! Complaining that the process sucks after you lose looks a little whiny, even if you are right (and you are).
Texas democracy in action: one delegate for every 22,000 voters in the day-long primary, one delegate for every 1800 people who came back to vote a second time.
wow, and Obama "won" such a system? I'd be a hell of a lot prouder getting 22,000 of my supporters out for me, than to get 1800 to come back for a second bite. Yet the result is the same.
-
@Xrandadu Hutman
[Read the article: Obama advisor calls Clinton a "monster," apologizes]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I think you need a license to shoot fish in a barrel. heh.
-
@Asher: honest candidates, an oxymoron?
[Read the article: Former advisor: Obama's Iraq plan "best-case scenario"]
[Read more letters about this article: Here][...] candidates, if they were really honest, would quit putting out plans in areas where it's certain that such plans will never become reality or where it would be silly to stick to those plans. Of course, voters want to hear specific plans, so it's unlikely that candidates will stop proposing them anytime soon. But it does seem intellectually dishonest.
I guess I'm cynical. I don't expect the politicians to follow through on the plans as described. But that doesn't mean the plans aren't useful. I still think useful distinctions and general contours can be drawn.
Both Hillary and Obama want us out of Iraq as soon as possible. That's vague, but still very different from MacCain's we have to win first plan. That could take forever.
I know both healthcare "plans" won't get enacted as is, but it tells me two things: 1) at least they have one 2) neither is single payer.
-
@lateagain
[Read the article: Former advisor: Obama's Iraq plan "best-case scenario"]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]We're here.