Comments on: The politics of politics

By: kat

kat — Wed, 19 Mar 2008 02:30:01 +0000

Then I pity you if you aspire to be as smart as Sullivan. He has been kissing Obama’s ass for months now– just andrew spewing more bull. Searing, gutwrenching, —-puking. Andrew is a shill for obama.
I wonder if Sullivan considers Wright a Black Christianist.
Smart like andrew–LOL

By: Craig Newmark

Craig Newmark — Tue, 18 Mar 2008 19:52:53 +0000

I wish I was as smart as Andrew Sullivan at http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2008/03/the-speech.html

Alas, I cannot give a more considered response right now as I have to get on the road. But I do want to say that this searing, nuanced, gut-wrenching, loyal, and deeply, deeply Christian speech is the most honest speech on race in America in my adult lifetime. It is a speech we have all been waiting for for a generation. Its ability to embrace both the legitimate fears and resentments of whites and the understandable anger and dashed hopes of many blacks was, in my view, unique in recent American history.

And it was a reflection of faith - deep, hopeful, transcending faith in the promises of the Gospels. And it was about America - its unique promise, its historic purpose, and our duty to take up the burden to perfect this union - today, in our time, in our way.

By: Harry

Harry — Tue, 18 Mar 2008 19:21:20 +0000

Both Hillary and Barack are seriously flawed individuals, and you could make a very strong case that either will be a disaster—–like Bush 41 or Carter—–as president.

Unfortunately, the same things can be said for John McCain.

I sense a nasty storm building on the horizon, and 2009 to 2013 are not going to be years with a lot of fun.

By: Craig Newmark

Craig Newmark — Tue, 18 Mar 2008 19:02:23 +0000

Jeff, thanks! but I’m no leader or visionary, just getting through the day, removing lots of disinfo and bigotry attacking both Hillary and Barack.

Anyway, I’ve had lots of managers in my time, particularly at IBM and also involving GM, etc. (ten years in Detroit.) Barack’s doing a really good job managing; observe the performance of his teams, particularly in caucus states. He’s picking up a team of really good managers, and managing them.

That’s also a really good “starfish and spider” approach; please pardon the overworked phrase. (On the other hand, Monday I talk to the US Southern Command about it. Who’da thought?)

By: Jeff Jarvis

Jeff Jarvis — Tue, 18 Mar 2008 18:43:31 +0000

Craig,
And with all respect in return….
Yes, Obama shows the ability to lead. But I fear I have not seen his ability to manage. And I do believe that what we are hiring in November is a manager of an institution that has been terribly mismanaged by someone who was bossed around and not a boss.
You, friend, are a leader and a visionary; you create and inspire. But you hired a CEO to run the company you created. And you regularly remind people what a smart move that was.
Push will come to shove and the President will be forced to make hard decisions and when that happens, I am not sure what Obama would do. He could very well impress me; if he wins, I certainly hope he does. But as far as I am concerned, he is untested and uncertain. I believe I know what Clinton will do and I’ll agree with most of it.
I’m not hiring a hero. We’re hiring the chief executive of the United States.

By: bab23

bab23 — Tue, 18 Mar 2008 17:37:34 +0000

I like the way even Daou put “full assault” in quotes. The Chicago (Tribune?) article I believe originated this report describes only the ongoing calls for more disclosure from Senator Clinton. Is that an assault? Maybe, there’s certainly innuendo there (or, to be generous, maybe just a call for transparency). Is it “full”? Well, frankly, I’m amazed at how little of either of the Clintons’ past alleged, admitted, or potential indiscretions have yet to surface in this primary race.

Senator Clinton has centered her campaign (understandably, but not always convincingly) on her “35 years” experience. How is it that Senator Obama is not permitted to comment upon the quality and quantity of that experience? Senator Obama has centered his campaign on character (mostly in the form of whose character traits are best suited to and effective presidency) and judgment. How is it he is not supposed to draw the kinds of contrasts Senator Clinton does with respect to all that experience?

Some tactics (from both campaigns) have been less honorable than others. Overall, I don’t see anything that comes even remotely close to crossing a line of dirty politics (and the only truly cringeworthy utterance from either of the CANDIDATES (as opposed to their underlings/supporters) was the ultimately irrelevant 60 Minutes hedge that may help perpetuate known a fallacy.

More worrisome to big-D Democrats is that they have one potential nominee saying that the other would make a credible president, but not a better one than he, and the other saying that her opponent, despite having a current lead by every measure, isn’t even worthy of the office.

Anyway, I hope you liked the speech. (All I want is a president who quotes Faulkner.)

By: MD

MD — Tue, 18 Mar 2008 17:02:44 +0000

“criticism is not racism”

So you want a major presidential candidate to use his speech on race - ON RACE - to address media bias and white people who get called racist because they say stupid things? There’s not a few other more important issues facing the black & white divide than whatever Ferraro chose to whine about? Can you remove head from keester for even one minute?

By: Craig Newmark

Craig Newmark — Tue, 18 Mar 2008 15:42:40 +0000

Jeff, with all due respect, I don’t think you have the Obama thing right. In brief, here’s what makes him different. Please bear in mind that I’m a nerd, not a policy wonk.

There’s a difference between a boss and a leader. You do stuff for a boss because he orders you to, and that’s effective, in a limited way, for a handful of people.

A leader can motivate millions of people to work together to do the right thing, and that’s what’s happening with Barack. That’s not just in the US; overseas, people feel that with him in charge, we can be the good guys again. That’d be in practice and perception.

Countries get big stuff done when people are inspired by genuine leaders, like FDR, Lincoln, Victoria, Elizabeth I, etc.

Another major difference is the relative lack of influence on him by the more predatory lobbyists. (Most lobbyists are just trying to get a fair shake for their client companies, but a small number are happy to sell out the public for a few bucks.)

Barack has so little of this bad effect that people have been forced to attack minor stuff. On the other hand, McCain is now completely controlled by predatory lobbyists, and Hillary is largely so. (I’ve done the fact checking at opensecrets.org, etc.)

So, the big differences:

– Barack’s a leader, not a boss

– He’s running very clean, not owned by the bad guys

Am I making any sense? thanks!