Letters to the Editor
-
@Uncle Fester
But ... it seems to me that many of Obama's supporters seem unwilling to admit he or his campaign have made mistakes, have used "negative" tactics, have made compromises on ideals to clinch the nomination, etc.
Can't Obama be a great candidate and *still* be capable of the above? Can't HRC be capable of the above and *still* be a great candidate? And does that kind of thinking make one intellectually deficient?
-
deloresflower, and paul wellstone
I forgot to comment on your reference to Senator Wellstone, and Democratic party values:
"Some members of the Democratic Party are more loyal to the values and the issues than to any single candidate or person. I hope that you and I are both some of those Democrats. Did you ever read Senator Wellstone's book Conscience of a Liberal? It's not the best writing and he wasn't perfect, but he was more a true Democrat and a populist than either Clinton or Obama."
He certainly was. I was proud to call myself a friend of Paul. I knew him when we were both profs in Minnestota and later he often came to my college during his political career. I have never known a more honest, open, and enjoyable person than Paul Wellstone. Even this long after his tragic death, I can still hear that raucus delighted laugh of his.
I have no idea what he would be saying were he to be blogging at Salon today. I suspect he would gently but firmly scold a whole lot of us.
-
@Juliebird: intellectually deficient?
I would call them idiots, and yes, both sides have plenty of them. But getting someone to admit that they are an idiot seems like a sterile exercise to me. And I know that we've had threads here that attempted to count the number of local idiots and find out which side had more of them. But we couldn't agree on the entrance criteria for idiothood, so that fell apart. And every once in awhile even an idiot gets lucky and has something of value to contirbute. Some of this reminds me of www.foxsports.com, where posters say "I'd really like the [Steelers, Cowboys, Lakers, Packers,etc], but their fans are the worst. So I hate that team. Meh. It's a good way to be divided and conquered.
But ... it seems to me that many of Obama's supporters seem unwilling to admit he or his campaign have made mistakes, have used "negative" tactics, have made compromises on ideals to clinch the nomination, etc.
From a more realpolitik perspective I think Obama's biggest mistake so far was failing to win either Ohio or Texas. I don't know what judgements or calculations were made by the Obama camp, but in the end, Hillary's victories allowed her to redefine the campaign, at least in terms of the media.We'll see about future voters. Hillary's biggest mistake was to plan on it all being over by February 5th. That fact makes me nervous should she prevail. That's a biggie for someone who's supposed to be the reality candidate with the big political machine.
Can't Obama be a great candidate and *still* be capable of the above?[mistakes or negative campaigning] Can't HRC be capable of the above and *still* be a great candidate?
That's really the core question. It would be great if we all tried to spend more time answering that question, and ignored the spewers and bombthrowers. Clearly not all mistakes are equal. Maybe a candidate has done other things to offset those mistakes. And one person's mistake is another person's virtue. But it would be nice to talk about specific policy, like sending a predator after OBL in Waziristan, then the name calling we seem to be falling into.
Likewise with negative campaigning. A little of it serves to toughen up the candidates, Too much though, and it looks like the candidate is putting it's own interest ahead of the party and the voters. That's bad.
Once again, reasonable people are going to disagree on what crosses the line.
-
--doc5467
thank-you for your comments about Senator Wellstone.
For anyone else reading this, I'm posting this video
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BF2CLRZLK2E
that is as inspiring as any Obama has given, and Wellstone did vote against the war. He speaks with moving prescience about the human costs of this war in blood and treasure. His speech has this bottom up politics sensibility of concern over average working people that is missing from too many Democrats these days. Too many Democrats in Congress seem to be afraid of being too liberal or not being "tough" enough. Wellstone didn't seem to let these fears stop him from being himself.
Thank-you for your comments Doc, and you're right he'd probably scold us for losing sight of what matters. I do feel chastened by what I said earlier. It was out of line and off the mark. I won't repeat it. I hope that whichever Democrat that is elected President will make things better for this country and end the war in Iraq. That's what I most wish for at this point.
Uncle Fester your posts are amusing...but don't forget that Texas's delegates haven't fully been given yet. The last I checked at least. Hold on to your hat. We won't see an end to this process (or the result of the caucuses?) until June at the earliest...barring some upset or surprise. Whoever the nominee turns out to be we have to hope that this exhaustive primary season only makes them stronger, and we supporters don't tear out eachothers' throats. If we can only avoid that, then maybe something good can come out of all this.
As those jokers in Vermont, Ben & Jerry, say: yes pecan.
-
JulieBird
you make a smart point
"But ... it seems to me that many of Obama's supporters seem unwilling to admit he or his campaign have made mistakes, have used "negative" tactics, have made compromises on ideals to clinch the nomination, etc.
Can't Obama be a great candidate and *still* be capable of the above? Can't HRC be capable of the above and *still* be a great candidate? And does that kind of thinking make one intellectually deficient?"
I still don't understand why Obama thought Rockefeller would help him win working class voters in Ohio. And compromises? Yes. Definitely. "Negative campaigning" if I were Senator Clinton I would find it most annoying to be reminded on a nearly daily basis that he is the candidate of "tomorrow" while she is the candidate of "yesterday." There is some below-the-radar lowness in that one, but it also seems to be working. I'm also getting tired of the phrase "I opposed the war from the start." I am glad that he did, but I also would like to hear him mix it up a little more. Talk about the bread and butter stuff a little more.