- Top Features:
- War Room
- Glenn Greenwald
- Broadsheet
- Joan Walsh
- Camille Paglia
- Since You Asked
- Follow Salon:
Read other letters about this article
Thank you, Kate.
Understandably.
You're free to feel nervous and I'm sure there's nothing I can say to allay that nervousness.
Again, I was suspicious of Obama for months, so I understand.
But he's managed to convince me, over those months, that, despite his vagueness (because of it, even?), his upside is limitless.
Simply put, I trust him.
Not blindly, to be sure, but I trust him as much as I can imagine "trusting" a politician. I believe in his vision, it's that simple.
His analysis always rings true to me and that's important to me. He has correctly (more or less) diagnosed this country's ills. One example, out of many, is his line about wanting to end not just the war, but the mentality that got us into the war.
He's talking about a society of fear and xenophobia and knee-jerk militarism, etc., etc., etc.
His "We the People" speech correctly noted the divide and conquer scheme that stifles a progressive agenda. Exploit race, cultural issues (homosexuality, abortion, religion, etc.) to drive people apart so they're more concerned with these things than schools and health care. It's really that simple, as I see it, and it works.
Obama is attempting to break that model of politics and (correctly, in my view) understands that until that is done, we'll just be dicking around about nonsense ad infinitum. And so it goes.
I don't view him as the Second Coming, by any means, but in short, it's clear to me that he gets it.
Clinton, on the other hand, believes the country's ills to be about Bush, which to me reveals a dangerous lack of perspective.
All that said, I understand that many people are uncomfortable with what they consider Obama's vagueness.
To them, I would invite them to think a bit more macro and then ask whether he still seems vague.
Because to me, his analysis is trenchant. Nothing vague about it.
