Take it away, Dor.
"Unprecedented opprobrium." Very nice. More highlights:
"Mr. Obama's apparent inability to confront, forthrightly, the pastor's poisonous pronouncements and his own relationship with him is, of course, the cause of all the continuing questions on the subject. It had not been in him, for instance, to say publicly that for a pastor to have preached that the U.S. government had embarked on a project to inject blacks with AIDS was an outrage on truth and decency.
These issues – the unanswered, the suspect – which outraged press partisans have for days attempted to dismiss as trivia and gossip, largely forgotten by the public, are unlikely to be forgotten, either today or in the general election, nor are they trivial. This, Messrs. Gibson and Stephanopoulos clearly understood when they chose their questions. Mr. Obama's answers told far more than he or his managers wished.
Offered a chance to explain the meaning of his remarks about the reasons people living in small towns cling to guns and religion, he went on to repeat them all over again in different words. What there was in those remarks, what attitudes shown, that had offended people, he had still not grasped. In short, what he had said that day he'd meant to say. "What you are, picks its way," as Walt Whitman told us."
Happy to discuss in the comments...
5 comments:
Obama has said he respects Rev. Wright but doesn't agree with everything he says, and that his post-9/11 comments were deplorable.
Yeah, that's real tough to parse.
"Good Work"? Do you enjoy reading obtuse writing like this? Qualifier after qualifier - every sentence so precious and scholarly. Rabinowitz made me feel like I was trying to disassemble a series of Jenga towers that she had crafted out of pistachio shells.
And a Whitman quote to boot. Why not a 500 word lift from Dickens or Henry James? The point can ALWAYS be further obscured.
Dorothy's no Jacob.
Cheers,
Bigdood
Bigdood: You don't respond in any way to the substance of the post. Weak. Ms. Rabinowitz is an older lady, so we might show her a little respect in excusing her if her writing is perhaps a bit florid.
Bryan: You barely skim the substance. Easy for Obama to say that he doesn't agree with everything Wright says. Any one of us could (and should) say that about any other person in the world. And fine for him to say that Wright's post 9/11 comments were deplorable, but that's not nearly enough to assuage concerns in view of Obama's actions:
Obama was married by and was led in his worship of a higher power on a regular basis by this spiritual leader who advocates positions like such as that the US government made AIDS to kill people, and that we deserved 9/11. He only disavowed this spiritual leader when he was called out in the midst of a Presidential primary election. Without having to say what this means specifically, to any of a number of individual Americans, it raises a general set of serious questions for many people relating to what, in a time of crisis, when a hard decision has to be made, the f*ck does this guy stand for???
So people (like Stephanopoulos and Gibson at the debate) try to ask him, Barack, what really did you mean by that? In response to these questions, Obama obfuscates, or repeats his earlier position in slipperier language. As a result, the answer that many of us take to the question of what the f*ck this guy stands for is that all that he stands for is being a rock star politician who wants to be President, and if he is ever elected President he will govern straight from the stale consensus liberal/New Deal playbook that he's used as a Senator, which, if used by a President, would likely bring us right back to 1979.
Maybe you think going back to 1979 is a good idea, but this is a huge problem for a lot of people. And the Obamabots chant away...
And that's to say nothing of how the press responds to all of this: by directing hatred and anger at their peers who raise these questions. I would call them fascists if they weren't just Obamatards.
So they spent half the debate talking about things like this, and the other half talking about (yawn) policy. I know because I watched the debate. Did you?
If it's the policy you disagree with, fine. (And you do.) But it's the policy you were allegedly asking to be outlined a month ago on this blog, but now you're concerned about character. And you somehow make the jump from character questions to policy here:
"As a result, the answer that many of us take to the question of what the f*ck this guy stands for is that all that he stands for is being a rock star politician who wants to be President, and if he is ever elected President he will govern straight from the stale consensus liberal/New Deal playbook that he's used as a Senator, which, if used by a President, would likely bring us right back to 1979."
... with no justification whatsoever. You're obviously connecting two separate thoughts that you have. I *could* counter by making an equally baseless comparison between McCain and Bush, as you do between Obama and Carter, but alas, the politics of hope won't let me. If you think you're tearing down Obama to help create a better candidate, or more informed Obama supporters, then I feel bad for you. I'll listen to what the guy says.
Also re: "the press." If ABC is the press, and the WSJ is the press, then it would seem different arms of the press are treating this differently, as they were supporters of and those who began this line of questioning.
Which gets me thinking about the whole "liberal media bias," which doesn't exist in any meaningful way. Because even if it does exist, newspapers necessarily represent their constituencies — as a market believer, you'd back me up, I'm sure. That is, if people don't like what they're reading, they won't buy the paper/view the website. Therefore, any "bias" would just be the "bias" of the readers, and you're just as "biased" as a regular WSJ reader as I am as a NYT reader. That is, we're both consumers. If there's a "liberal media bias," it means there are more liberal consumers of the media. Now, as we've learned, people choose candidates for any number of reasons often having very little to do with current events. My grandma, for instance, just looks at the letter and puts a check next to the "R." (Given that this is Chicago, she probably does it three times) Any political bias in the media is just the bias of the consumers, so even if it tilts liberal, that's because there are more liberal consumers. What would the alternative be?
On a related note, I love Bill Kristol's column in the Times. I hate the guy with a passion, but at least he lets me know how the other side thinks. I can't stand websites (unless I'm really riled up) like Daily Kos or Crooks and Liars when they get all Orthodox Or Die on me. I know Republicans (hi!) and I like them and try to engage them on the issues. But when you bring up issues I feel like you're just doing it to hammer away at me, because you're arguing against someone else, not me. So you see how that's a little unwinnable.
Come on Fausto, let's get busy on these Royals.
Post a Comment