Letters to the Editor
-
Obama's nouvelle vague
He is vague because he is a Republican and is trying to hide it. Paul Krugman is right when he says Edwards is the most liberal, then Hillary, and Obama the most conservative. Yesterday in Iowa (see Raw Story), Obama criticized Gore and Kerry for being divisive--not Bush, not the Republicans, but Gore and Kerry were divisive. A breakdown of poll of Iowa voters (see NBC news analysis by the evil Tim Russert) shows Obama winning in Iowa because of Republican voters. If only Democrats caucus Hillary wins big. If Independents are added to the mix, she still wins but by a slightly smaller margin. When Republicans join the Democratic caucus Obama wins--and not because he is a good guy. They like him either because he is the most conservative or the easiest to beat or both. I'll still vote for him if he wins the nomination because he is better than the other Republicans, but he won't win the election, and if by a miracle he does, he will be a one-term president I fear.
Linda
-
finally!
As an English professor (and black, biracial, female and gay--supposedly his perfect demographic) I have been scratching my head over the collective media swoon for Obama's speeches. He is clearly a lovely man, but there is no substance, only rhetoric.
Kennedy had to stall and stutter on Civil Rights because although he was a highly intelligent, very charming and pretty man, he lacked the relationships in Congress to make a stand on such a controversial yet clearly morally compelling issue. It was Johnson--crude, corrupt Johnson--who bullied, threatened and drew on his long knowledge of what various senators and congressmen needed and or feared to usher in the votes. He had nothing to gain by doing this--for Johnson, it was simply the right thing to do.
There is nothing audacious about hope--we all grasp for it even when reality tells us to stop dreaming and start grappling with the reality of difference. Inexperience, however, is often audacious, as it imagines it need learn or know nothing more in order to solve all the problems in the world.
-
Mesmerizing Oratory
Obama's popularity demonstrates the hypnotic trance a crowd can fall into when they hear a consummate speaker. His appeal draws on the human yearning for a Utopian state. Like the charismatic evangelist, Obama taps into a crowd's desire for a soothing, simple answer. His oratory is superb and his voting record does not shoot him in the foot. He is a fresh face.
I like him but I doubt that his appeal would crack into the hard shell of a conservative independent or overcome the racial prejudice still lurking under the American surface. Most of all, I worry that he is too compliant. I want a fighter who when worse comes to worse knows how to compromise but who will put up the good fight to achieve his/her dreams and who knows how to maneuver in the political swamp. I'm unconvinced that Obama has yet attained that kind of expertise.
-
obama not vague
I believe this is just another phony criticism dug up by clinton apologists. the fact is that on policy issues there is very little difference btn he an dother mainstream dems. where he has distinguished himself is in his ability to gain acceptance by moderates bc unlike some of the more "experienced" dems he doesn't treat the process as all out total war. he has run on the same idea that many others have tried: that he can "bring people together." people that say his policies are vague are guilty of simply not researching before they write.
-
memawright
Inexperience, however, is often audacious, as it imagines it need learn or know nothing more in order to solve all the problems in the world.
In other words, hire teenagers while they still know everything..
-
fetboy
I said Obama is a hypocrite, not a wimp..
And mimawright, sorry for misspelling your name..
-
Barack Obama's nouvelle vague
Finally someone is saying it. Barack's message is one of hope, but hope for what? We all hear every election year that the politician wants change. This man is well spoken but he has not got enough experience to be President. Hillary has the experience, but I don't like her policies so I won't vote for her. Barack hasn't said one thing yet that makes me think he will be any different than what we have now. And electing someone for the sake of "hoping for change" will get you five cents and a replica of our own Illinois Governor Rod Blagojejvich. He promised change and we got more of the same ole same ole. He could be sitting next to George Ryan in less years than it took former Governor George Ryan to get to prison.
-
Did anyone notice THIS?
From Salon:
Dennis Kucinich's Iowa-only endorsement of Barack Obama is another matter. The Obama campaign issued a press release late Monday afternoon heralding the New Year's gift from Kucinich. In an open letter to his Iowa supporters, Kucinich declared, "In those caucus locations where my support doesn't reach the necessary threshold, I strongly encourage my supporters to make Barack Obama their second choice."
-
@ doloresflower
First, I would like to thank you for the links and for addressing our differences in a non-emotional and respectful way.
You are mistaken if you think my opinion of Obama is shaped by Shapiro's article. I actually think it is a weak article. Keep in mind though that Shapiro has been posting articles when many more at Salon are still taking vacation. (As to the person who said his writing is good, his writing generally is good but this article could have used more specifics.)
Doloresflower, my opinion of Obama is more shaped by what I have heard on debates, including one NPR debated with an extremely narrow focus in which Obama came across as quite light on foreign policy.
I went to the links you suggested but I wondered why you sent me to a general site for Obama and to the campaign sites for Clinton and Edwards, so I checked out Obama's site. It is slick but light. In my opinion -- as a former resume writer who knows all the tricks -- the best site is Edwards'. It is not tricky. It is not slick. It is very long on details. For instance, one issue that interests me is Disability Rights. I was able to clink on a link and get an Edwards opinion on disability and quickly find that Edwards has a clear understanding about how disability connects intimately to poverty. I suggest that people who like to sneer at poor people go read it. Furthermore, a short perusal showed me that Edwards is on top of the issue of rural poverty, something that is often overlooked by others who give lip service to fighting poverty.
You see, doloresflower, I understand something about poverty myself, having once been homeless and having lived on less than $580 a month.
There is no perfect candidate. We all have issues which are of importance to us. Women's issues are important to me and the right to choose, and it is difficult to fault Senator Clinton on these, while still being uncomfortable about some of her foreign policy votes.
What I do abhor is a tendency of some I hear to attack the other candidates on the basis of sound bites or hate and bitterness. I just don't think that we should be devisive. I think we can disagree respectfully, as you have done.
I offer the websites that you mention plus Obama's actual website so that people can see what I mean:
http://www.ontheissues.org/default.htm
http://www.johnedwards.com/issues/
http://www.hillaryclinton.com/issues/
http://www.barackobama.com/index.php
One reason that shifted me to Edwards is his stance on poverty. It is the centerpiece of his campaign, the one thing he cannot default upon without being embarrassed should he be elected. However, I am also impressed that his site shows that he trusts the voter with details, with lots of information. The public will trust those who trust them. Giving us information is a sign of that trust. I think this election will be different from the last in that even less politically saavy voters now understand that they can get the policy information -- if available -- on line, along with voting records and a multitude of ways to check out contradictions and hypocrisy.
In my opinion, the dumbest thing that Hillary Clinton has done is not apologizing for her Iraq vote. I think I know why she has done this. As a woman, she no doubt feels she must show no weakness. However, an unwillingness to say "I was wrong" is weakness itself.
Obama is not a wimp. Hillary is not a bitch. Edwards is much more than just a stylish trial lawyer with a full head of hair. These are smart complex people. We should respect that. Any hope we have lies with the Democratic Party -- which to my amazement is now actually an organized party.
Let us not squander this opportunity.