Letters to the Editor
-
The pro-Clinton perspective rankles here.
Sorry, Joe, but this does read rather badly as a Clinton water-carrying piece. For one, Edwards isn't mentioned at all, as some other readers noted. For another, there's a lot of regurgitating of anti-Obama talking points scattered throughout the piece (he's insubtantial, he talks to neo-cons, etc.), talking points that don't really hold up. Third, there's the scapegoating of Mark Penn, which has that circular firing squad ring to it. (I can only imagine the "White Boys" -- Carville, Begala, et al -- are livid about the strategy, and are working the phones today with that exact spin on the Iowa collapse.) Indeed, the piece barely suggests what seems to be true from the numbers: Obama WON the Iowa nomination just as handily as Clinton LOST it. He fulfilled the promise Howard Dean tried to make in 2004, bringing thousands of new voters into the caucus system to back his candidacy.
What some columnists don't seem to "get" is that, just as Edwards has become the populist alternative, Obama embodies the progressivism he stands for. Rather than drone on in the denatured technocratic policy-wonk of 12-point plans (all the while securing checks from America's largest corporate donors), Obama speaks in the language of shared national purpose and a common citizenship. (The 12-point plans are there too, but he doesn't dwell on them like the Clintons do. Bill could make statistics seem exciting, but it is a *very* rare gift.) "Without vision, the people perish." Like no candidate since perhaps Bobby Kennedy, Obama is offering a vision of a progressive America, rooted in our founding ideals and our best civic impulses, that is rallying Democrats, Republicans, Independents, and -- most importantly -- formerly disgruntled and disenfranchised non-voters to his standard. This is no small thing.
In contrast, the leadership Clinton offers, before and after Mark Penn, is the same unambitious and uninspiring blend of triangulated-to-death DLC centrism practiced by her husband. Why even bother? This is not to say Bill Clinton was a bad president, not at all. Given the times he was working in and the low-down, unprincipled miscreants he was often forced to contend with, you could even say he accomplished amazing things, once he got his sea legs.
Still, we are now at a moment when the Republican party is in rout. The conservative movement which began in 1964, coalesced during the 70's and 80's, and gave us the likes of Reagan, Gingrich, and Bush has now -- at long last -- been thoroughly discredited. Our nation has paid a heavy price for this realization, in both blood and treasure. Now more than ever, it is time for Democrats to shake off the protective camouflage and step into the sunlight. Put simply, it is time for change. The old road is rapidly agin', Joe, so please get out of the new one if you can't lend your hand.