Letters to the Editor
-
@ WES
Your point is well-taken, and it gets to the heart of a serious philosophical difference between Clinton and Obama.
Obama has put it eloquently. Clinton believes that change comes from playing the game better. That is, conceding that Rove's game and Atwater's game is the right one and then playing it better.
Clinton has been victimized by what she rightly termed a VRWC. Her lesson? Out Rove Rove.
Obama's argument is that, while this may help win elections, it does nothing to help bring change once the election is won because the cost is deep and profound alienation.
There's simply no serious consensus for doing bold, visionary things because the only mandate is: "Well, he'll save us from Willie Horton!"
Obama has spoken about the lesson learned of trying to implement change without a clear popular mandate and he has determined that the way to secure that mandate is not through the win-at-all-costs, kitchen sink, Tonya Harding style of politics, but rather through talking up to people, not down. Keeping the focus on the serious, not pandering to the bullshit.
Now, we can argue about the wisdom of either approach, but my opinion is that Obama's way is the only way to accomplish what we say we want.
Sure, it might still fail, but as I see it, it's the only approach that even stands a chance.
Do you see that side of the argument?