sozobe
 
  1  
Tue 23 Jan, 2007 09:57 am
Thanks, revel!
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Tue 23 Jan, 2007 10:42 am
Obama backed Mayor Daley yesterday (mh, well).

The Sun-Times reports from the same event additionally that ...

Obama praises Hillary, won't discuss VP spot


Quote:
Sen. Barack Obama on Monday refused to rule in or out the possibility that he might end up on a 2008 Democratic ticket with Hillary Clinton.
[...]
"I consider Hillary Clinton a friend," Obama said. "I don't see her as a competitor, potentially, but rather an ally in the process of moving this country forward. I think there's going to be a terrific debate. . . .

"There's no doubt Hillary Clinton will be an extraordinary candidate -- as will many of the other people who've already announced. Bill Richardson announced. He's got an unbelievable resume and is an extraordinary talent. So there are going to be some terrific folks for the Democrats to chose from, regardless of what I do."
[...]
0 Replies
 
Lash
 
  1  
Wed 24 Jan, 2007 01:05 pm
People, that's dirty.

He's in bed with the most notoriously corrupt gangster in American politics.
0 Replies
 
Thomas
 
  1  
Fri 26 Jan, 2007 04:11 am
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  1  
Fri 26 Jan, 2007 05:36 am
You math people! Always trusting that some algorithm will clarify the misty air and illuminate the path ahead. Krugman's next column should consider the "heroic" in western literary tradition which would effectively re-mist the air about him (by the by...great piece by Krugman on Freidman's work and legacy in the latest NYRB).

It's very instructive, I think, to study what this administration (and the movement supporting it) has been able to achieve through mere insistence that they are guided by principle even while consistently and transparently in violation of those principles. The only thing which has really gotten them into trouble, their plaintive cry continues, is this saintly adherence to principles because they are pretty much alone in this modern period in actually having principles. And then, to stick to those principles in such an environment! It is almost meta-saintly. These people know what it is like to be nailed up on a cross. They suffer so terribly for us.

It isn't about principle at all. That's the pretense, for sure, but this pretense forwards something quite different which effectively supplants, perhaps temporarily, any real need for principled policies or actions. Bush stands on the wreckage of 9/11 and then doesn't adequately fund health care provisions for the site workers. There is/was a broadly experienced psychological response to Bush when portrayed in this manner (and they pushed it and pushed it) and the factual details like the health care matter are not even close to being a match for the hero on the hill thing...regardless of how hollow and deeply unprincipled it actually was.

Krugman would be right to argue that the absence of principle produces a moral and intellectual wasteland and that such is deeply undesireable. But he is naive to consider that a euphonious and resonant voice won't win an election.
0 Replies
 
Thomas
 
  1  
Fri 26 Jan, 2007 07:05 am
blatham wrote:
(by the by...great piece by Krugman on Freidman's work and legacy in the latest NYRB).

Link please!
0 Replies
 
Thomas
 
  1  
Fri 26 Jan, 2007 07:08 am
blatham wrote:
You math people! Always trusting that some algorithm will clarify the misty air and illuminate the path ahead.

To mutilate an Isaac Asimov quote: If there's a problem with principled and analytical thinking, it isn't through opportunism and fuzz that we will solve it.
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Fri 26 Jan, 2007 07:46 am
Thomas wrote:
blatham wrote:
(by the by...great piece by Krugman on Freidman's work and legacy in the latest NYRB).

Link please!


NYRB,Volume 54, Number 2 ยท February 15, 2007:
0 Replies
 
Thomas
 
  1  
Fri 26 Jan, 2007 07:54 am
Thanks Walter!
0 Replies
 
sozobe
 
  1  
Fri 26 Jan, 2007 08:46 am
0 Replies
 
okie
 
  1  
Fri 26 Jan, 2007 08:47 am
Thomas wrote:

If Sozobe can't support Russ Feingold for president, maybe I will. Or maybe Bernie Sanders can run for president? Please?


Thomas, please tell me you didn't say that. Bernie Sanders especially.
0 Replies
 
Thomas
 
  1  
Fri 26 Jan, 2007 09:11 am
sozobe wrote:
One thing that has struck me though as I make my way through "The Audacity of Hope" is that Obama is getting a bum rap about being too general (platitudes issued in a resonant bass voice) when the book is actually chock-full of specifics.

Fair enough. I'll order The Audacity of Hope and read it.

okie wrote:
Thomas, please tell me you didn't say that. Bernie Sanders especially.

I'm sorry, Okie, but I did say that, and I stand by it. I may be a libertarian, but I'm easily corrupted by personalities. In particular, Feingold and Sanders are two non-libertarians who succeeded at corrupting me. Obama may well pull it off too, despite what I say in this thread. Politics is too interesting to let ideology keep me from appreciating thoughtful positions, candidly expressed. This is why the politics of my avatars have ranged from Paul Krugman to Antonin Scalia, and why socialists like Orwell and Shaw are likely future candidates.
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  1  
Fri 26 Jan, 2007 10:43 am
Thomas wrote:
blatham wrote:
You math people! Always trusting that some algorithm will clarify the misty air and illuminate the path ahead.

To mutilate an Isaac Asimov quote: If there's a problem with principled and analytical thinking, it isn't through opportunism and fuzz that we will solve it.


Don't you miss that guy? I began reading Assimov when I was about 12 (lots of heroism in his sci-fi, come to think of it...and in same vein, it's very interesting to read about Joseph Campbell's influence on George Lucas' Star Wars stories) and later bumped into his more serious commentary. Brilliant fellow.
0 Replies
 
Thomas
 
  1  
Fri 26 Jan, 2007 10:55 am
blatham wrote:
Don't you miss that guy?

I do. Please feel free to introduce our born-again friends on the S&R forum to Asimov's two-volume Bible exegesis anytime. But I better don't get myself started. Somehow I always end up making a mess in Soz's thread.
0 Replies
 
okie
 
  1  
Fri 26 Jan, 2007 11:02 am
Thomas wrote:

okie wrote:
Thomas, please tell me you didn't say that. Bernie Sanders especially.

I'm sorry, Okie, but I did say that, and I stand by it. I may be a libertarian, but I'm easily corrupted by personalities. In particular, Feingold and Sanders are two non-libertarians who succeeded at corrupting me. Obama may well pull it off too, despite what I say in this thread. Politics is too interesting to let ideology keep me from appreciating thoughtful positions, candidly expressed. This is why the politics of my avatars have ranged from Paul Krugman to Antonin Scalia, and why socialists like Orwell and Shaw are likely future candidates.

You must be swayed by personalities a great deal, wow. Sanders is about as far from Libertarian as you can find here in this country.
0 Replies
 
Thomas
 
  1  
Fri 26 Jan, 2007 11:25 am
okie wrote:
You must be swayed by personalities a great deal, wow. Sanders is about as far from Libertarian as you can find here in this country.

Not so far from those of us who think the greatest imminent threats are currently to civil liberties, not to economic liberties. I can't speak for all of us, but six years of Bush have brought this libertarian to a peculiar point: At the moment I can easily live with a president who raises taxes, if only he refrains from starting gratuitous wars, cuts back on Patriot Act powers, quits imprisoning Americans without a trial, and closes down Guantanamo Bay and its cousins around the world. Given where America is at, Bernie Sanders and Russ Feingold fit this libertarian's preferences better than many Republicans who sling around the word "freedom" while subverting its substance through their votes.

(PS: Sadly, Wikipedia tells me that Feingold decided in November 2006 not to run. <sigh>)
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Fri 26 Jan, 2007 11:33 am
I could imagine that Sanders would fit quite well in some European Libertarian parties .... make that a few ... e.g. in the UK and ... ehem... in Germany.
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  1  
Fri 26 Jan, 2007 11:47 am
An absolutely typical modern FCC story... http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/us/AP-Media-Ownership.html
0 Replies
 
okie
 
  1  
Fri 26 Jan, 2007 01:42 pm
Thomas wrote:
okie wrote:
You must be swayed by personalities a great deal, wow. Sanders is about as far from Libertarian as you can find here in this country.

Not so far from those of us who think the greatest imminent threats are currently to civil liberties, not to economic liberties. I can't speak for all of us, but six years of Bush have brought this libertarian to a peculiar point: At the moment I can easily live with a president who raises taxes, if only he refrains from starting gratuitous wars, cuts back on Patriot Act powers, quits imprisoning Americans without a trial, and closes down Guantanamo Bay and its cousins around the world. Given where America is at, Bernie Sanders and Russ Feingold fit this libertarian's preferences better than many Republicans who sling around the word "freedom" while subverting its substance through their votes.

(PS: Sadly, Wikipedia tells me that Feingold decided in November 2006 not to run. <sigh>)


Well, for somebody in Germany, you are far more worried about Bush restricting my civil liberties than I am. I have not a taint of a threat as far as I can see. What Bush has done is less than 1% as bad as FDR locking up Japanese Americans in concentration camps by the thousands, plus reading soldiers letters. You have to understand most of the controversy around Bush is nothing but Democrats being mad about losing the Whitehouse. Clinton did much of the same stuff, and if a Democrat was in office, they would be doing the same or worse with hardly a hint of a problem whatsoever in the press.

As far as the war, Congress gave the go ahead, for which many of the same people act like Bush made the whole thing up. This has to be one of the worst periods of politics here that I've ever witnessed.
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Fri 26 Jan, 2007 01:49 pm
Quote:
You have to understand most of the controversy around Bush is nothing but Democrats being mad about losing the Whitehouse.


I doubt you could sound more partisan if you tried.

Not only that, you're purely wrong: most of the controversy surrounding Bush has to do with his mis-management of the Iraq war and the War on Terror as a whole.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

So....Will Biden Be VP? - Question by blueveinedthrobber
My view on Obama - Discussion by McGentrix
Obama/ Love Him or Hate Him, We've Got Him - Discussion by Phoenix32890
Obama fumbles at Faith Forum - Discussion by slkshock7
Expert: Obama is not the antichrist - Discussion by joefromchicago
Obama's State of the Union - Discussion by maxdancona
Obama 2012? - Discussion by snood
 
  1. Forums
  2. » Obama '08?
  3. » Page 149
Copyright © 2025 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.24 seconds on 07/19/2025 at 01:22:11