Read other letters about this article

• Tuesday, August 26, 2008 05:38 AM

  @Falhaar

  Falhaar: "I'm not pretending that I'm a genius or that I know something that others don't. I am, however, looking to dampen your hopes that Obama or the Democractic Party are going to be any different to the previous administration."

  Again, why? I mean, you really are just being self-congratulatory if you think you're telling people something they don't know. Where in Rebecca Traister's article does it suggest that Obama is going to change the entire ballgame? Which post here made such an assertion or implication? Nothing did. You're arguing against a phantom of your own imagining, and then patting yourself on your back for it. It's wankery.

  Falhaar: "The only thing which made the Bush administration "worse" than others was their utter incompetence at keeping some of their hideous authoritarian activities secret."

  You seem to be underestimating the Bush administration's incompetence and their other failings. You might have noticed that they conspired to start a war that has not gone so well.

  Falhaar: "I guess I just don't see it as cynical to point out that Obama is no different to any other politician."

  Whether you define it as cynical or not, what is the relevance of this (quite obvious) statement to this article about Michelle Obama's speech?

  Falhaar: "I also don't see that he brings anything fresh or new to either the party or to politics."

  Okay, then please describe a theoretical political candidate whom you would consider as bringing something fresh and new to politics. Let's hear your description not in terms of what Obama is not, but in terms of what you're positively looking for.

  Falhaar: "He's charismatic, youthful and a stupendous orator, sure, but that's just surface."

  If you can't see that there's something going on under the surface, then it's your own fault for not looking.

  Falhaar: "What is actually different about his approach to leadership, government or policy?"

  Again, nobody is claiming he's going to change the entire paradigmn of politics. You made up a straw man so you could feel smart knocking it down. Obama does, however, show signs of having more principle than most of the politicians who have climbed as far as he has up the ladder. His approach to leadership does seem to be more inclusive and respectful than most, but he also seems to have some backbone at the same time. His approach to policy seems to be a sort of principled pragmatism, but undoubtedly he is going to have to (and already has) dilute some of that principle to get things accomplished. I don't think you've been following the race very closely for very long if you really need to ask these questions.

  Falhaar: "I suppose I just chose this article because it was the straw that broke this camel's back in terms of salon's blatantly uncritical analysis of somebody who's got a good chance of wielding executive power for the next four years."

  If you really think Salon's been uncritical of Obama then you CLEARLY have not been reading it for very long or very closely.

  Falhaar: "Yes, my point is that elections are a charade. We need to see why that is and correct it."

  People have been making this point for eons. We're not going to correct things in a forum about whether Michelle Obama did a good job with her getting-to-know-you speech.

  Falhaar: "I'm not trying to be cynical, but I am tabling my opinion that many of the issues that both liberals and this website are concerned with will not and cannot be solved by party politics."

  You're arguing a phantom. Nobody is claiming that party politics will solve everything.

  Falhaar: "I apologise if I came across as a bit too militant there..."

  Okay, apology accepted then. You can write whatever you like in here, really. They don't edit much. You can write a manifesto about how American party politics is all a sham. Much of it would probably be true. I just don't see why THIS article is "the straw that broke the camel's back." You want Salon to be more critical. But of what? Of Michelle Obama's speech? Or of Barack Obama himself? They've dissected him from every possible angle, as has much of the media. They've examined the moles on his buttocks and found reason to suspect their patterns might suggest a plot for world domination. So I'm not sure what else you want.

  —Xrandadu Hutman Read Xrandadu Hutman's other letters
  Permalink
  Flag
  Click "Submit Flag" if you feel this post is inappropriate. Explain why below if you wish.

  Cancel