David Ignatius:
Obama: A Thin Record For A Bridge Builder
Among all the nasty, irrational attacks against Obama, this somewhat critical Ignatius piece strikes me as being perfectly reasonable.
Among other things it's important to realize that we know less about Obama than we do about the other two candidates. Those of us inclining toward him are basically saying that he seems to be so much better than the other candidates that we're willing to vote for him even though we're less sure what he's like than we are what they are like. Now, if both other candidates were bad, then this decision would be easy to defend; but when both other candidates are good it is harder to do so. Why not vote for Clinton? We know pretty much for sure that she would be an adequate president. Given the disaster of the last seven years, isn't it extremely important to avoid another disaster? At this crucial juncture, isn't it more important to avoid striking out than it is to swing for the fences?
Ignatius's point is actually rather different from this one, actually; it is that Obama's bipartisan credentials are less than stellar. To my mind that's an extremely important point. It seems insufficient to overcome the things that count in Obama's favor, but Ignatius is right that it's something that deserves careful attention.
Obama: A Thin Record For A Bridge Builder
Among all the nasty, irrational attacks against Obama, this somewhat critical Ignatius piece strikes me as being perfectly reasonable.
Among other things it's important to realize that we know less about Obama than we do about the other two candidates. Those of us inclining toward him are basically saying that he seems to be so much better than the other candidates that we're willing to vote for him even though we're less sure what he's like than we are what they are like. Now, if both other candidates were bad, then this decision would be easy to defend; but when both other candidates are good it is harder to do so. Why not vote for Clinton? We know pretty much for sure that she would be an adequate president. Given the disaster of the last seven years, isn't it extremely important to avoid another disaster? At this crucial juncture, isn't it more important to avoid striking out than it is to swing for the fences?
Ignatius's point is actually rather different from this one, actually; it is that Obama's bipartisan credentials are less than stellar. To my mind that's an extremely important point. It seems insufficient to overcome the things that count in Obama's favor, but Ignatius is right that it's something that deserves careful attention.
posted by Winston Smith at
6:19 PM
17 Comments:
I cannot conceive of anything that would be sufficient to "overcome the things that count in Obama's favor" to those who are favorably disposed toward him, even, as the old saw goes, being found in bed with a dead girl or a live boy.
From an article referencing one of now-Sen. Obama's two (2!) (count 'em!) autobiographies:
Mr Obama said he had many orthodox opinions as a Democrat and a black man, before adding: “That is not all I am. I also think my party can be smug, detached and dogmatic.” He then set out views – on the free market, patriotism, spirituality, and a politics not based solely on “victimhood” – which he predicted will “get me into trouble”.
Although admitting that he was new enough to be a blank screen on which “people of vastly different political stripes project their own views”, Mr Obama added: “I am bound to disappoint some, if not all of them.”
Well, some or all of the GOP is already well-disappointed with John McCain, so I look forward to the disappointment being spread around if and when the real Barack Obama stands up.
Oh, and I'm certainly not going to go near The New Republic's endorsement of Sen. Obama's reasonable and centrist advisors, particularly LL's email pal Austan Goolsbee. The facts are not in, and even when they are, they will not ever rise to the level of facts in this epistemologically contentious age.
But it appears that the Chicago press knows more about Sen. Obama than most of the rest of us do, and seem to being doing their job, albeit a bit late.
[Via InstaP, and others]:
http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2008/03/03/726268.aspx
But like John Lennon, I'm just sittin' here watchin' the wheels go round and round. Catchya when it all sorts out.
[Apologies for posting twice in a row, WS. Again. The situation is, um, fluid. As you rightly note, HRC is a bird in the hand.]
I'm glad the press has started to do its job looking closely at other candidates too:
http://obsidianwings.blogs.com/obsidian_wings/2008/03/ignorance.html
because while some or all of the GOP have soured on him despite his multiple auto da fe's to wingnut hobby-horses, his biggest fans (the mainstream media) finally seem to be waking up to the fact that the guys has a tenuous grip on reality, if at all.
Nice, Tom. I like how you're already more anti-Obama--because we allegedly don't know enough about him--than you are anti-Bush--despite the fact that we know everything we need to know about him, and to call it godawful would be dignifying it.
It is, of course, to Obama's great credit that he's so up-front about all this. And, of course, just because people project things onto someone doesn't mean that there's not something already good there. In fact, it's his unusual honesty, e.g. about this kind of thing, that is one of the things that attracts people to him, myself included.
As if any of that should need to be said. But keep it up. The more snide, irrational attacks you launch against him, the more pro-Obama I get. Nice work.
Why not just be up front about your biases instead of pretending to be at all objective about this?
I'm pretty upfront. But I think Obama has purposefully made his views obscure.
Hillary, I disagree with on many or most things. But we know what we're getting. And BTW, I think the republic will survive her.
By dragging in Bush, it sure looks like you're doing the tu quoque thing you're always castigating me for. And you certainly let it pass here with anonymous dragging in McCain.
All depends on whose Gore is being oxed.
But anonymous has a good point about McCain. The press nailed him instantly
http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2008/02/john-mccain-ent.html
which is good. Also they banned the mercury product in 1999. McCain's info is more out of date than clueless, and I admit I myself knew nothing about the issue, and I doubt many others did either. On the list of things a candidate should know, this doesn't make the top 1000.
Another thing to like about Hillary---she puts the press in their place...
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/washington/2008/03/hillary-clint-1.html
Just pointing out that you'll make any excuse for Bush's actual awful presidency...but suddenly your standards are much higher when Obama's at issue. Whereas with Bush you are willing to spin and pad and excuse even the most blatant awfulness, with Obama even the bare possibility that there might be something sub-optimal lurking somewhere is suddenly a terrible, deal-breaking problem.
As I've pointed out before, if you use differential standards of proof, then all things are possible, argumentatively speaking.
So, no, no tu quoque at all. I'm just explaining why I don't give any weight to your judgments about such things.
Oh, and that remark about how the republic would survive Hillary--suuuubtle. Completely irrational, too, as it's grounded in absolutely nothing.
Not at all. I was sincere. HRC is my second choice, but the republic has done worse.
As for Bush, I don't want to talk about him anymore with you and avoid it at every turn. I'm a Kool-aid drinker, you have Bush Derangement Syndrome.
Whatever. Let's give each other a break.
In the meantime, you think Reagan was a bad president and Carter was a good one. There's a consensus against both your positions, but I mention it seldom. Perhaps I make a rhetorical mistake by not mentioning it at every turn to impeach your own credibility in that tu quoque sort of way, but I decline to, perhaps out of some gentle, friendly---or misbegotten---sense of civility.
I'm well aware of the consensus, and have acknowledged that it's more likely than me to be right. Reagan's star will, of course, fade with time....almost everybody gravitates toward the middle as time goes on.
Yeah, I've got BDS. Me and the rest of the world. I like your Homer Simpsonesque attempt to dismiss the Bush disagreement..."let's not get into who rabidly supports the worst president of the last hundred years and who doesn't..." Nice, again.
I've tried to engage with you Tom, but you've got a kind of relentless adherence to basically one note that just makes it difficult to see you as a serious interlocutor.
Actually, I thought the subject was Obama, not Bush. I gave up on Bush awhile ago with you.
So, no, no tu quoque at all. I'm just explaining why I don't give any weight to your judgments about such things.
Hmmmmm. But Jimmy Carter was a good president. OK.
Actually, 'good president' is unclear. We'd have to clarify what is meant. Jimmy Carter did not sell weapons to terrorists, nor did he commit impeachable offenses. This puts him way above Reagan in the rankings. You seem to think that good outcomes make a good president...though Reagan's value is questionable even by that standard. But oh, why bother? It was morning in America! The GOP need itself an FDR, and Reagan made them feel all swoony.
But, um, why is it that I'm still trying to reason with given its obvious fruitlessness? Why, I guess I don't know...
You seem to think you can slip in a minor charge and a half-truth, ignore everything else, and call it an argument.
Fact is, you dragged in Bush to impeach my credibility, so I simply put the shoe on the other foot.
As for Obama, I'm still looking forward to seeing him "disappoint" his supporters on the left.
Do you ever get tired of spouting bullshit, Tom?
Just wondering...
Hey, you brought up Bush. Again.
It is, of course, to Obama's great credit that he's so up-front about all this.
Hope you followed the WaPo link. We'll see about the up-front. Anyone can walk on a carpet strewn with roses.
Hehe.
Substitute "Rezko" for "Abramoff" and Obama for Bush, and get back to me. This should be amusing.
When there are some active politicians convicted, as happened with some of Abramhoff's associates(see, Ney, Bob, for one example,) then you'd have something to talk about, Legate Van Dyke:
The extensive corruption investigation has led to the conviction of White House officials J. Steven Griles and David Safavian, U.S. Representative Bob Ney, and nine other lobbyists and Congressional aides.
If you don't like that reality, to paraphrase a S.J. Perlman line, there's others you can use, I'm sure............
Don't try to reason with Tom, LL. If he's equating Obama's associate with Rezco with the GOP's association with Abramoff, this just proves what's been obvious for some time now: he's not being honest about the comparisons.
This is a trick the GOP's been using for a long time now: the old "well, both sides are flawed" strategy.
So one side is soaked in corruption and nastiness...and the other side makes the occasional mistake. Both equal,right? Such deplorable spin is always possible, but not worth responding to, really.
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home