Letters to the Editor
doloresflower
Published Letters: 1201 Editor's Choice: 10
-
Kitt
[Read the article: Jonah Goldberg and Glenn Reynolds warn of "social unraveling" if Obama loses]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Ali wasn't running for public office. I just think that people need to realize that it isn't just that Obama's running for public office and trying to get elected, but that he also has to consider the safety of himself and his family--physical safety in a way that Edwards at least likely does not. And I hate writing that sentence.
But I also don't think that Obama is not fired up over the issues. He just uses more of a rational approach (which has been interpreted as "calm") because so far it's worked for him. I think that people should give him credit for coming this far this fast. Berating him for not going further faster or being bolder seems beside the point, since he's just accomplished more than anyone expected so far by doing things his own way.
-
Kitt
[Read the article: Jonah Goldberg and Glenn Reynolds warn of "social unraveling" if Obama loses]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Ali did face a difficult set of circumstances, and he has never faced his life with anything but courage. But wouldn't you agree that the responsibilities of celebrity (even facing a five year prison sentence) are different than the responsibilities of public service?
If you don't agree, we can agree to disagree. But Ali's legacy is part of why Obama can run in the first place, and I've seen old women who were part of that era (I wasn't...I was born in the seventies) with tears in their eyes over Obama, saying how brave it was that a black man was running for not only political office, but the political office.
People who fault Obama for too much caution just may not understand or accept his approach. The way I observe him he would rather under-promise than over-promise. But more than Edwards or Clinton, he seems to hold his integrity between what he says and what he does. That's huge for a politician. I'm still not sure what's going to happen. But for as long as I've been watching him which is admittedly less time than Clinton or Edwards...he's been my favorite for around a year now...I still have seen his cautious, rational approach gaining traction with the people that really decide elections...the undecideds. The independents. The young (if they really do show up to vote this time like they did in Iowa). His ability to mobilize people at a grassroots level is so far greater than Clinton, and I see Edwards as his closest rival both in popular support and in anti-establishment positions. But Obama seems to have greater numbers and greater access to money from voters even though he's not using the union lobby money as Edwards or Clinton, I read that he gained the majority of union votes. Not bad.
If Obama's approach succeeds, however he does it, I suppose, people will look to his model as the new "winning" approach. (In fact, that's what they're already doing). I have recently read the Black Swan by Taleb though. Or I've skimmed through it. So I suppose that building narratives like that commit the error of induction. I'm just glad that Obama's campaign remains upbeat, energetic and surprisingly authentic. I think Obama has been vastly underestimated--by both the left and the right, so we'll see what he's capable of--in the months to come.
-
my source
[Read the article: Jonah Goldberg and Glenn Reynolds warn of "social unraveling" if Obama loses]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]was here:
http://www.tpmcafe.com/blog/coffeehouse/2008/jan/05/the_labor_vote
the site you suggested from Mother Jones led me to a site that showed campaign contributions rather than how union members had actually voted. I was saying that Obama had garnered union support (meaning votes) without union lobby support (meaning money or official endorsements).
-
L.W.M.
[Read the article: Jonah Goldberg and Glenn Reynolds warn of "social unraveling" if Obama loses]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]my source
was here:
http://www.tpmcafe.com/blog/coffeehouse/2008/jan/05/the_labor_vote
the site you suggested from Mother Jones led me to a site that showed campaign contributions rather than how union members had actually voted. I was saying that Obama had garnered union support (meaning votes) without union lobby support (meaning money or official endorsements).
Sorry I forgot to write your name on the first post!