Site Presented By
Sunday, Nov 8, 2009
Carol Richards
Published Letters: 517
Glenn,
When you didn't mention that Olberman suggested you might be worth more than him, I thought that was ok. I thought you were just trying to give a sample of the kind of silly way he was conversing.
But was your ommision an example of what upset you about my quoting you? Or was it ok for you to not mention how Olberman complimented you because he was kind of being a jerk in other ways? I find it confusing.
I guess one arguement is it doesn't matter how we make things personal. I've been trying today to ask about the use of "liar" and also understand how you read Liasson's statement. I never assumed you were being anything other than honest in your claims. But people get mad at these kinds of conversations and I know it's easier to just throw out the compliments and keep fighting the bad guys.
Clearly, I've written too much, but since you were not happy with how i quoted you I wanted to see if the Olberman ommission was the kind of thing you meant.
I think it will be very interesting to see how some of us will continue to support Obama in this campaign. I mean how, specifically, we will continue to justify that the differences between McCain and Obama are significant in a way that obliges an intelligent person to demonstrate support for Obama via a vote in the upcoming election. Glenn's writing on this subject should be very informative as the election continues.
Personally, I think a vote for Obama can be rather easily justified as long as one keeps the justification within a rather narrow (and short term) frame of reference. The more we widen (look further into the future) and deepen (consider the more fundamental causes of our social degradation and vulnerability) our consideration of this election, I think it becomes easier to justify doing all sorts of other things with one's vote. I just think that along with all the other subjects upon which Glenn incredibly educates me, I will learn quite a bit in how he articulates his support for Obama.
I guess the corollary of this is how interesting it will be to see Glenn respond to those who argue strongly against supporting Obama.
Today Glenn wrote:
But it's equally clear that politicians like Obama are unable within the prevailing political establishment to do much to stop the continued growth of the lawless surveillance state and our two-tiered system of justice, even if they wanted to stop it, even if they were willing to expend political capital to take a stand against it.
I think that how we each understand this use of "unable" is one of the most fascinating subjects in politics and culture today. For many this "unable" simply has to do with "evil" and "weak wills". For some this type of "unable" is a result of stupidity.
I doubt Glenn is of the opinion that a nominee for the general election can be somebody who doesn't represent the basic center of gravity of his or her party line. What we believe to be the ultimate or fundamental cause of this center of gravity will ultimately determine how we respond. Do we form angry little righteous groups who fight the bad and stupid elites? Do we take their tactics and merely use them with greater moral vision? We find a leader of our tribe and draw lines!
Once we accept that Obama is unable to be the president of our fantasy (and yet remains a basically decent individual), we've gotta decide how we articulate our desire to see him in office. If we already know that it doesn't matter who wins this election, I guess we won't have much to say about this desire. Or we avoid the conflict by cultivating a kind of bitterness towards daddy for not being the leader we want him to be. Well, in the meantime, I'm grateful for the light Glenn sheds on concrete subjects that matter very deeply to me.
Now that we know Obama is a person who enjoys lying and doesn't care about the constitution, we can ask the real question:
Why is that we all have friends and uncles who are full of moral contradication and weaknesses but who would make amazing presidents? You know what I mean?
Think of that friend of yours who you really care about and respect, despite the fact that he or she holds some silly opinions and is thick headed on certain matters. Or just think of a republican who you know is a good person. Now think about what an awful person Barack Obama is, the way he either enjoys lying or simply doesn't care about the truth at all.
Why is it that we've never had a president who is as decent as those nice folks who we simply disagree with? Obama is not simply somebody who disagrees with us; he is a bad person, right? I mean, we can't even trust him due to his blatent disregard for the truth.
Don't you think if Obama was even half-way decent he would pull himself out of this election, knowing that he has almost no interest in the simple truth?
Much of the initial coverage about Fort Hood turned out to be wrong. Is there anything wrong with that?
The accountability imposed by another country for the CIA's kidnapping and torture reveals much about our own.
Fox News' morning show plays to type, talking about whether Muslims in the Army should face "special debriefings"
219 Democrats and one Republican join in favor of the legislation, which passed by a narrow margin
The survivor and author is upset about comparisons some on the right are making to genocide
Salon headlines in your mailbox
