Letters to the Editor
-
So where is the substance in these follow-ups?
Everyone's justifiable criticism of Shapiro's Hilary support piece fails to add any substance to the debate. Referencing his intelligence, life experience, integrity, etc. adds nothing.
Here's a link to some of his actual votes and position statements:
http://www.ontheissues.org/Barack_Obama.htm
I agree with Edwards on more issues, but Obama is not any more vague than any of the other candidates in his speeches.
-
asleep in the gallery
Politics is sports in the US- trivial popular entertainment by and for people who think they are better than all them bubbas with their football team stickers on their cars and the team flags flying proudly by the side of their garage door. Not surprisingly, Salon's coverage of politics is exactly like reading the sports page. There's the (sometimes several times)daily anecdote & analysis piece about something that really will not matter even come tomorrow- much less in November. It's not that politics is without consequences, or even that some of the candidates are more worthy than others. And barring Bush taking a cue from his man in Pakistan by declaring martial law, the prospect of seeing him and his junta sent back to the corporate world that spawned them is downright exciting and hopeful. But the very first letter in this thread says it all: this is totally inconsequential and numbingly boring. In the past I have found myself occasionally irritated by the trolls who post here whining about how boring both the articles here and the responses to them are, but I find myself joining the chorus now. I cannot wait until the election season is over and Salon's columnists, who seem to be fairly intelligent and write well enough, can find something worthy of an intelligent discussion to write about.
-
Obama + The Bully Pulpit
To those of you that think that Obama will somehow be helpless in the face of monumental right wing obstructionism, think about his ability to speak to his message to millions of people. You have heard it, and for those of us who are not incredibly bitter and cynical, you cannot help but be moved.
We all recall this from the DNC keynote address, where he reached out looking for the best in all of us, not just those who already believed his message, but to those who, while disagreeing, also had an open mind.
Now picture this power being broadcast on every network, this time from the Bully Pulpet.
I just don't see the right standing up to that any more than intolerance has ever stood against to the exceptionally eloquent on a national stage.
-
I don't get it, either...
I've read through everything the proBama folks are offering forth. I'm still getting nothing substantial. As others have said, he seems to be a Rorschach blot.
I don't really know what to make of it.
But I find myself wondering whether he has much choice, as a black man, to be anything but "hopeful," "bipartisan" and "unifying"?
I'm leaning Edwards, and I hear many say his "angry" populism won't wash nationally. Whatever we seem to really think, our national politics seems to demand a sunny optimism (remember Carter's great sin of positing a malaise vs. Morning in America.). I'm not sure an "angry black man" would be any more reassuring in a national campaign than an angry white man. Obama does have to project a primary persona that isn't threatening if he captures the nomination. It is a bit of a tightrope he has to walk.
Many are saying it's the same empty rhetoric employed by Bush, but remember, Bush did get "elected". Twice.
If, as it's suggested, my more specifics-oriented and clearly defined preference, Edwards, may not be able to leverage an Iowa win into a real shot at the nomination, I would hope that Obama, likely as he is to be the only alternative to Clinton, has a similar Trojan Horse strategy.
But in the meantime, I agree with Shapiro's point, as I've wondered all along what happened to the 2004 orator we saw at the Democratic convention. I'm just disappointed that Obama has seemed so befuddled at times. I expected, if not specifics, then real inspiration. It's one thing to be careful and calculating, but another to seem indistinct and uncertain. And my real fear is, of course, that both Clinton and Obama have too many presidential-race negatives, and that once again, we will have coalesced around candidates that we think are electable, but really aren't.
It's truly disappointing that substantial candidates like Dodd and Biden, and to a lesser extent, Edwards, have gotten such short shrift from the outset. (Sorry Kucinich fans, he's just too goofy...Americans in general will never elect a guy like him to be their avatar.) This turned into Clinton vs. Obama way too quickly for my tastes. The media may indeed shoulder most of the blame, but we've obviously abetted them.
-
Who Else?
This article was another bit of fluff. Candidates speak in vague terms to avoid being attacked? This is news?
I have grown to like Obama, he is articulate and intelligent. We really do not have any choice if we want to get away from the horrors of the Bush administration.
All of the Dem front runners have some flaws. Hillary's flaw is that half the country already hates her. Lots of luck changing people's minds on that one.
Edwards is a good candidate also, but because he took federal matching funds, he will be unable to spend any more money until August. He will be beaten bloody by the Republicans by then.
I will vote for any of the three if they get the nomination (Look at the crazies on the Rep side as they fight for the Bush supporter vote). Stop being so Democratic partisan. Support your favorite, let the process run, and support whoever wins.
-
Hope, working together, all that stuff...
...isn't the way human beings operate. Struggle, fighting (fairly and otherwise). Victory and conquest. Cooperation only among the fighters to try to defeat the other side. Unfortunately we need a fighter, not a let's-all-get-along type.
-
change with Obama? Please.
He's been a creature of ADM for his entire political career. You can't get anywhere in Illinois, of *all* places, without knowing exactly which side your bread is buttered on.
He can't possibly be so naive to think the GOP is just gonna make nice. Which means he thinks the Dems should roll over. Because the GOP is never gonna make nice. Not ever. Not the way it is now. They're a bunch of proto-fascists who barely deserve a place in the national dialog, so anti-American have they become. Just look at right-wing blogs these days. Most of them would be right at home in Putin's Russia, or Mao's China, or Mugabe's Zimbabwe. And those blogs get their material straight from GOP talking-points.
Not all political movements are healthy for the body-politic. But Obama seems unwilling to admit that. Until he says he's ready to play true hardball with the GOP and its minions, he's of no interest to me.
I don't know how much better Edwards would be, once he was in office, but he talks a much better, and more convincing, game, than Obama.
With Clinton, you know exactly what you're going to get...another DLC drone with hawkish tendencies to defang GOP accusations of weakness. That is not what we need right now.
Actually, what we need is another FDR. But there's no-one like that on the horizon.