Entirely possible that he is a whiny punk, but equally likely to my reading of the link that he expressed a reasonable desire to speak on the issue of his choice, and that reasonable members of the Obama campaign reasonably rebuffed that request, and that he might quite reasonably decide to sprinkle that topic amongst his remarks regardless, and that a considered and thoughtful disagreement amongst grownups will be settled with no particular enmity other than that stirred up by gossips and sports fans who don't actually care about politics and government but only about drama and conflict.
In the same frustrated breath -- I was listening to one of my local NPR public affairs shows today, and the host asked a DNC delegate to sum up her party's platform in an equivalent way to how the public readily understands the Republican mission statement: "low taxes, strong defense, family values." Unfortunately, she took the question seriously when the only sensible response would have been: "That's ridiculous. A ten-words-or-less political philosophy is not suitable for grown ups. I guess we must be for high taxes, weak defense, and whatever the opposite of family values is."
1. I agree that the 2008 Bill Clinton has greatly disappointed me. Having said that, I also do take into account, the source, which is an unnamed media source, and the media is very invested in the Clinton/Obama rift narrative. I'll judge based on the speech he actually gives. If he's been nursing a private grudge but can put it aside when it really counts, that will go a ways towards rehabbing his image, I think. Maybe not all the way, because I do find the reports of the spat credible, if not iron-clad.
2. It is weird that they asked him to speak on natn'l security. Not his signature issue at all.
3. James, I completely disagree. Politics is in a large degree about marketing yourself and your governing philosophy. "God, guns, gays & the flag," and the like. Deep conversations on civil liberties and nuanced approaches to tax policies belong to college dorms and think tanks. If prominent dems can't sum it up, they have failed at their core mission. Having said that I don't blame some hapless delegate for not giving a great answer, but the dems do need to develop and clearly and persistently articulate a simple core set of principles. Some do it better than others (Biden)
Entirely possible that he is a whiny punk, but equally likely to my reading of the link that he expressed a reasonable desire to speak on the issue of his choice, ..
Yes, of course you're likely correct.
I am however, so increasingly unable to see him in a charitable light.
3 comments:
Entirely possible that he is a whiny punk, but equally likely to my reading of the link that he expressed a reasonable desire to speak on the issue of his choice, and that reasonable members of the Obama campaign reasonably rebuffed that request, and that he might quite reasonably decide to sprinkle that topic amongst his remarks regardless, and that a considered and thoughtful disagreement amongst grownups will be settled with no particular enmity other than that stirred up by gossips and sports fans who don't actually care about politics and government but only about drama and conflict.
In the same frustrated breath -- I was listening to one of my local NPR public affairs shows today, and the host asked a DNC delegate to sum up her party's platform in an equivalent way to how the public readily understands the Republican mission statement: "low taxes, strong defense, family values." Unfortunately, she took the question seriously when the only sensible response would have been: "That's ridiculous. A ten-words-or-less political philosophy is not suitable for grown ups. I guess we must be for high taxes, weak defense, and whatever the opposite of family values is."
This country is SO frustrating.
1. I agree that the 2008 Bill Clinton has greatly disappointed me. Having said that, I also do take into account, the source, which is an unnamed media source, and the media is very invested in the Clinton/Obama rift narrative. I'll judge based on the speech he actually gives. If he's been nursing a private grudge but can put it aside when it really counts, that will go a ways towards rehabbing his image, I think. Maybe not all the way, because I do find the reports of the spat credible, if not iron-clad.
2. It is weird that they asked him to speak on natn'l security. Not his signature issue at all.
3. James, I completely disagree. Politics is in a large degree about marketing yourself and your governing philosophy. "God, guns, gays & the flag," and the like. Deep conversations on civil liberties and nuanced approaches to tax policies belong to college dorms and think tanks. If prominent dems can't sum it up, they have failed at their core mission. Having said that I don't blame some hapless delegate for not giving a great answer, but the dems do need to develop and clearly and persistently articulate a simple core set of principles. Some do it better than others (Biden)
Entirely possible that he is a whiny punk, but equally likely to my reading of the link that he expressed a reasonable desire to speak on the issue of his choice, ..
Yes, of course you're likely correct.
I am however, so increasingly unable to see him in a charitable light.
Post a Comment