- Top Features:
- War Room
- Glenn Greenwald
- Broadsheet
- Joan Walsh
- Camille Paglia
- Since You Asked
- Follow Salon:
Read other letters about this article
@ little lord baltimore
Pretty sad. I agree with Doc that you appear to be one of the more rational Obama supporters, but the problem with comparing the Obama sleaze with the Clinton sleaze is that perception across America is that the Clintons are ALL sleaze and Obama is PURE as the driven snow. While there may be a few who actually study the candidates records, policy positions, history, etc., most of America can't be bothered with such hard work. They vote based on perceptions not facts. And, for good or ill, this campaign has been spun as "Experience" (boring) versus "Hope for Change you can believe in" (Hallelujah).
I don't mean to sound snobbish. I just think that most Americans are too busy with the real problems of their real lives to spend the time necessary to understand all the nuances and implications of the various candidate's positions. Salon readers are the exception, not the rule. And even in these blogs it seems to me that more often than not invective trumps logic.
My perception of many Obama supporters (not you) is that it doesn't bother them that Obama js less of a policy wonk than Clinton because, after all, "I don't know all the issues either and I'm still a good person, so why should I care that Obama doesn't know them either. He'll hire people who do. The main thing is that HE IS NOT THE OLD POLITICS."
The reason Rezco matters is not because it makes Obama any more or less sleazy than Clinton. The reason is that for most supporters (not all) it strips away the underlying basis of his campaign message. If he is no different (not necessarily worse, but not better either) than other politicians, then maybe just maybe people might have to start considering substance, and that could be a danger to the Obama campaign.
