BASHING HILLARY FOR SPORT
Both parties indulged their relish for bashing Hillary. To me, they seem unaware of how silly it seems to make hay over Hillary's "sins", while we sit during the imperial Presidency of King George "The Decider". It's rather like grousing about the food, while you sit in a gulag (to borrow Hitchen's flair for over-characterization).
Hillary's legislative agenda was somehow responsible for the lives of a quarter of a million Bosnians over the span of four years? Europe couldn't fix its own backyard, so America is now "responsible" for The World in that way? I guess... Maybe some blame, but not sole blame, as Hitch shades it so outrageously.
On Hitch's idea that Bill Clinton could not easily win a third term, how laughable is that? Hitch simply hasn't been watching more than the carefully snipped bits that the media can fashion into a contest of 30-second bites or that Bill throws to them when he decides to get angry-for-headlines. BC continues to be the most able politician in the country (see his College Station, TX speech), almost without contest. The notion that Margaret Thatcher (or any of the foreign leaders on their smug list) should be a feminist model for women in America seems ... culturally unaware. Compare, even, Liddy Dole (women in America are largely expected to talk about being women, qua women, yes?):Of this work Dole said, "My objective as Secretary of Labor is to look through the 'glass ceiling' to see who is on the other side, and to serve as a catalyst for change."
Andrew seemed a bit out of practice (or form?) on these debate forums (a bit too long and not punchy? Some unreconciled facial contradictions: "I completely disown that" but nevertheless a very "Christian message" from Wright?; "A Christianity disowned by politicians" with Barack the only (!) politician who can reach out to this group of ... believers (?)). No fault, though. It's like billiards - you have to keep playing, unlike riding a bike, to keep the edge. (Please, no "bloggingheads", though, thank you very much.)
THE WRIGHT QUESTION
I disagreed with AS that Obama should answer for Wright's statements about AIDS and drug-use conspiracy. These are factually incorrect statements that Wright himself should clear-up, not Obama. It's not so easy for Wright to do without risking getting drawn in further, but it is important that he do it, not for Obama, but to avoid having his ministry distorted by the press (one doesn't want a false message out there or to be responsible for its propagation).
I didn't know what to make of Hitchens's contention that Wright "relished" the idea of drawing Obama into controversies or contentiousness, except it seems thinly supported.
I was shocked that AS admitted to knowing about the Wright stuff (and suggested that Hitchens did as well). All the time he was endorsing Obama and he knew this was festering in the background? I did not see any mention of it in The Atlantic cover. I'm not looking for "dirt" on Obama, but to ignore it altogether? Aiiiie. (Also, I would like to see the foundation for "foul mouthed demagogue").
OBAMA and HILLARY FOR PRESIDENT
I shared Hitchen's worries that Barry is not all that we make him out to be, that there are disturbing amounts of artifice in the brushstrokes of authenticity. In fact, my doubts seem to me more radical then even Hitchens'. I don't estimate either candidate a good "all arounder". If one didn't at least see a good rudder on either ship, it would be easy to despair, even. (Da Rauch Bürger feels it too, although, unlike Jonathan, I'm allowing the possibility of a close-to-the-vest strategy as a partial explanation of why there may not be more "there" there, right now.)
It's hard to judge. without direct experience, their estimation of Hillary's campaign as indicative of an ongoing doctrinaire management style. For one, you could make the case that any legislative effort in a Democratic Party, with its inherent distrust of "falling-in-line", requires a hard spearhead for any meaningful legislative effort, as collaborative efforts are likely to end up either without conclusion or with a very difficult compromise "to sell" politically. All politicians want credit. Didn't Bush want to use his ill-gotten, 2004 "political capital" to be the one who privatized social security?
Second, I wish that the both of them could try being a Clinton for a while, with the withering attacks, and see how "open" they might be with selecting and managing their staff ...
Sunday, April 6, 2008
Sullivan, Hitchens Sit With Russert
