Letters to the Editor
weeping for brunnhilde
Published Letters: 1150 Editor's Choice: 3
-
@ lateagain
[Read the article: Hillary Clinton's big, brass ... fortitude]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]So many provocative, engaging thoughts.
Thank you for that.
So many things to respond to, but I'll focus on this:
"I know that many people will say that they are laying a trap, waiting to attack her as soon as they can, but in my gut--a place that agrees wholeheartedly and intuitively with Barack's message of finding common ground between enemies--I can't help but think that she has only gained in terms of her "likeability" factor with real righties."
Ok, as to Obama's claim to unite and Clinton's manifest action in this case.
I agree that reaching out to a Fox audience is important.
The question is how one reaches out.
I didn't see Clinton's interview, only the snippet where she said indignantly, "Well I don't think the government spread AIDS.
That said, here's what I think. If the cost of going on Fox was offering odious panders such as this, then we have a serious dilemma, which is really the dilemma: what's more important, winning votes at any cost or committing oneself to a (more or less) principled agenda.
To me, the cost, in this scenario, whatever else she managed to accomplish or articulate over the course of the interview, is that she marginalized the "liberal" spectrum of political discourse.
Now, we can argue on whether that cost is worth the greater end (which is what, exactly, beyond having a Democrat in the White House?), but to me, this is where the rubber hits the road: is this a cost worth paying?
My answer is no, but I'm happy to entertain counter-arguments.
So when you write that Clinton is a better "politician" then yes, if "electability" is the ultimate metric, she may well be (although I can't imagine her not ultimately being brought down by the same tactics by which she held on and prevailed, if it turns out that way).
The real question is, electability at what cost?
If she's elected and bombs Iran, what's the difference?
Literally, what's the difference? Then we have to start haggling over whether the risk of tension with Iran is worth whatever other boons Clinton is holding out.
Anyway, great thoughts, lateagain, thanks.
-
@ Fester
[Read the article: Hillary Clinton's big, brass ... fortitude]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]"We heard a lot about Obama's miserable bowling score in PA, but comparatively little about his recent basketball games."
To be fair, I can see how the media might shy away from that one like toxic waste, not wishing to incur the risk of being accused of racism for turning Obama into Shaquille O'Neill.
I'd be inclined to give them a pass on that.
-
@ lateagain
[Read the article: Hillary Clinton's big, brass ... fortitude]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]"What I mean is, maybe she will practice bipartisanship at home but win points with the tribe by provoking warfare overseas?
An unreserved yes.
I could be wrong, but it would take some serious convincing. I honestly, in my heart of hearts believe she's more like Bush than we recognize.
Her intransigence when it comes to self-reflection, for one.
Her inability to think in terms of the wisdom of things on a daily basis.
Her apparent reliance on loyalists.
Her thriving on the siege-mentality environment.
I really don't mean these things as ad hominems. They're really not.
They're the products of years of both casual and intensive scrutiny on my part.
It's my considered judgment that her foreign policy might truly reflect the tribalism you mention.
-
here's what with Clinton
[Read the article: Hillary Clinton's big, brass ... fortitude]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]See, I think her problem, when I refer to the siege mentality, is that she's apt to behave like a wounded animal.
Here's an example.
(I'm Hillary Clinton and I approve this message): "Farakkhan, Farakkhan, Farakkhan."
Now, this is undeniably a right-wing tactic, right? I mean is there anyone who can seriously argue it's not? We can at least agree on this, right?
Guilt-by-association, racism, diversion, character defamation, etc.
That's an objective analysis, is it not?
Now, had Clinton's plans worked out, and she had cruised to the nomination as the heir-apparent, she would never have needed to resort to these tactics, nor do I believe she would have wanted to.
I don't think she employs these tactics by nature, but I do think that when she goes into survival mode, "all options are on the table."
Frankly, as foreign policy, that alarms me.
Greatly.
It's reckless, bellicose and unprincipled.
It fails to account for "blowback," long-term consequences, etc.
It's purely reactive and the only goal is the immediate one of survival.
She no doubt tells herself that "when she's president" she'll do Good Work and the ends will justify the means. But she displays no awareness that going on television and repeatedly saying, "Farakkhan, Farakkhan, Farakkhan" might have what economists might term "hidden costs."
And voila, ladies and gentlemen, this is the irreducible dilemma of this campaign, and it's a question Democrats, liberals, leftists, radicals, citizens, have to wrestle with.
What are the "hidden costs" of "ends-justify-the-means-ism"?
What do we think?
-
@ Fester
[Read the article: Hillary Clinton's big, brass ... fortitude]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]"We view Sports as ritualized combat in many ways (back to my love of violence meme) and the particpants as heroes, and so I can see the advantage in displaying Obama as being component, assertive and aggressive in a ritually acceptable way. The fact that he's still in pretty good shape and not a total wimp is also a plus."
Indeed.
Politics too.
(My dissertation's on ritual, btw.)
Rodney Dangerfield. :)