Quoted for Truth
The entire premise of Barack Obama's candidacy is built upon the opposite assumption -- that Americans are not only able, but eager, to participate in a more elevated and reasoned political discourse, one that moves beyond the boisterous, screeching, simple-minded, ugly, vapid attack-based distractions and patronizing manipulation -- the Drudgian Freak Show -- that has dominated our political debates for the last two decades at least.
Labels: politics
I have to tell you, I've caught Senator Obama in a number of lies and distortions of truths here. Not as many as Senator Clinton I will readily admit, but he's certainly not entirely above playing that game.
Spike
Well, lay 'em on me then, Spike. I'm happy to hear what you consider lies and distortions. I may or may not agree with you that they are (knowing your penchant for pedantry, I ask to reserve judgment) but I've yet to see Obama come within a light year of the kinds of underhanded crap that's been coming out of the Clinton corner so far.
Well, just grabbing an example from yesterday's speech about the war in Iraq, he said the following:
OBAMA: "Now, Senator Clinton has tried to use my position to score political points, suggesting that because I want to withdraw prudently and would listen to our commanders on the ground that I'm somehow less than fully committed to ending the war. She makes this argument despite the fact that she's taken the same position in the past."
Clinton's argument isn't that he wants to listen to the commanders on the ground (because, as he says, she wants to do the same thing).
Clinton's argument is that Obama used to say that he would get the troops out by a specific date no matter what.
Okay, big surprise: A politician either promising one thing to primary voters while intending to do something different when in office, or changing his statements as time goes on. And yes, Clinton has done exactly the same thing. And I wouldn't be surprised if a statistical comparison of the number of times Clinton has done it compared to the number of times Obama has done it comes out with a lopsided result.
But when anyone claims that one side in the debate is entirely clean while the other is entirely dirty, that trips my spin-sensors.
(Oh, and I won't touch the things said by Clinton campaign staff or Obama campaign staff, because you can't trust a word out of any of those mouths.)
Spike
Spike
I think the good thing about Obama is that he does assume that people think. It’s also a dangerous assumption. Most people don’t. It’s tragic, but true. I’ve given up having faith in the average person. I was at a business dinner a few months ago and told everyone:
“I pretty much hate everyone in the world and spend my life making exceptions to the rule.”
I know that’s not the best way to go about life, but it seems to work for me. I have a LOT of exceptions to the rule. Maybe someday I might actually start loving everyone again, but I doubt it. My biggest reason for hating the world is just how simple everyone is.
When I listened to Obama’s speech the biggest thing I took from it was that he admitted that there is a problem with the way we look at ourselves and each other (he was included in that observation). He said it’s about time we were honest about it and stopped pretending it doesn’t exist.
I can’t count how many times I have been in a situation where someone I didn’t know said to me: I have Black friends but…
I have NEVER felt the urge to tell people I have White friends. It doesn’t qualify me for anything. It doesn’t help me “Level up” that’s for sure. Although I wish it did. I would actually play golf then.
When Geraldine said Barak is where he is because he’s Black it was pure comedy. It just reeked of sour grapes. Is Hillary where she is because she’s a woman? It didn’t help Jessie Jackson or Al Sharpton win votes. Barak seems to be a natural leader. I won’t bother to say he’s well spoken. He is an Ivy League graduate… but then again so is Dubya.
I don’t think Hillary is “evil” I just think she comes off as disingenuous. I think she comes from the old politics school and its what America is used to. It only looks bad because Barak is not in her league of underhanded (or blatant) tricks. I will admit it’s because he’s not as shameless that she comes off like an Ogre. It’s a good strat. However, this wasn’t a reactionary strat. Barak has been this way the entire time.
Is it all a chicanery? Perhaps. But you know I will take the smokescreen that feels more genuine to me. On the bigger issues they more or less agree. So I will pick the one who at least APPEARS to be less shady. Make me WANT to believe your lies.