- Top Features:
- War Room
- Glenn Greenwald
- Broadsheet
- Joan Walsh
- Camille Paglia
- Since You Asked
- Follow Salon:
Read other letters about this article
"The question all along has been whether McCain and Clinton are more (or less) unifying, because that's how Obama framed the terms of debate at the outset (that and 'hope' and 'change'). "
Maybe we've been watching two different campaigns, but as I've seen, Obama's argument about being able to unify is but one aspect of his candidacy.
So when you say "that's how Obama framed the terms of debate at the outset," I can't agree. It was one of many appeals that went into his frame. It was by no means his central selling point.
His opposition to the war immediately leaps to mind as another distinction of his candidacy.
The ability to unify is something we won't really know in any serious way until he's in office.
He's not speaking just of unity among the populace during an election cycle, though I'm sure he's aiming for this too, but lasting unity.
By definition, whether he can do this remains to be seen.
It's perfectly plausible that he can win people over over time, and in fact, hasn't his pattern been to close lots of gaps between himself and Clinton in surprisingly short periods of time? So it even appears that his campaign has, at least to some extent, borne out this claim.
Wouldn't you agree?
