Vietnamnurse wrote:Sozobe:
I am watching and really enthusiastic too. I wish Mamajuana was here...she would like him very much too, I think.
Ain't that the truth! What a nice thought.
It is, I agree. :-) (Both that it's a nice thought and that I wouldn't be surprised if she were rabidly pro-Obama.)
The New Yorker hasnt arrived here yet - should be here on Thursday. Will buy it and read the Obama article.
Meanwhile, this side-comment on the article on TNR's Plank. It's the last paragraph that caught my eye, as it echoes my doubts.
Quote:OBAMA'S PASSION:
Larissa MacFarquhar has a very good and generally positive profile of Barack Obama in this week's New Yorker. The following paragraph, however, is worth noting.
Obama has staked his candidacy on union--on bringing together two halves of America that are profoundly divided, and by associating himself with Lincoln--and he knows what both of those things mean. He calls America's founding a "grand compromise": compromise, for him, is not an eroding of principle for the sake of getting something done but a principle in itself--the certainty of uncertainty, the fundament of union. "I would save the Union," Lincoln wrote, in a letter to Horace Greeley, the editor of the New York Tribune. "If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that." "I like to believe that for Lincoln it was never a matter of abandoning conviction for the sake of expediency," Obama writes. "Rather ... that we must talk and reach for common understandings, precisely because all of us are imperfect and can never act with the certainty that God is on our side."
Obama's comment is a neat paraphrasing of a passage in Lincoln's Second Inagural Address, but our late president's letter to Greeley is making a very different point. In essence, to achieve the goal of saving the Union, Lincoln would make any compromise, or do anything. This is a far cry from saying we should try and save the Union because, well, we're all flawed and imperfect and quite a ways away from omniscient.
The worrying thing about the piece for Obama fans is that his thirst for consensus and unity ("One America") comes across as less a way to pragmatically achieve good policies than as a misplaced need for consensus as an end in itself. And speaking of pragmatism, my hunch is that talking so high-mindedly will be much more effective in a general election than a primary--a primary that Obama still has to win. MacFarquhar's side-by-side comparison of Obama and Clinton answering a question on health care is instructive on this subject--and troubling if you're rooting for Obama.
--Isaac Chotiner
nimh
I haven't read the NYer article yet either.
On the TNR passage, it is my consideration that Obama is unlikely to match Clinton's depth and breadth of knowledge/experience on almost any area or aspect of policy, domestic or foreign. I suspect few can, her husband being one of that few.
But I think the TNR writer's evaluation re Lincoln/compromise is overly rigid and literal. I'm not particularly well-informed on Lincoln, but one argument that Cuomo makes in his book on Lincoln is that the ex president had and maintained a very deep and consistent humilitiy, making Obama's passage perhaps more sensible than the TNR author suggests.
And we ought to imagine what Lincoln's situation must have been. If the present polarity in the US was magnified many times to something approaching irreconcilable division between right/left, blue state/red state...say, such that some Newt Gingrich character began to actively and combatively work towards a two-nation goal, we could expect to see federalist politicians and thinkers express just the sort of "save the union above all else" comments as the TNR writer points to. It seems clearly a matter of acute situation and over-riding priority rather than lack of principle.
The present divisiveness in US politics is, I think, a deeply serious matter (even if how much of it is a function of history or how much a function of a two-party system or how much a function of modern religious and class and racial division or how much a matter of Nixonian and Rovian political expediency is a complex matter.)
But as regards this division, Obama's perceptions and values seem to me to be appropriate and necessary right now. One of the valid criticisms or worries of a Clinton candidacy and presidency, after all, is that such divisions will be solidified.
It is a hell of a lot to ask or expect of a young man to fulfill such an over-arching hope. But I don't think an old man or woman would fit the bill. The breath of reinvigoration or re-imagining probably has to rise up from and within the younger generation. The potential is there.
Boy, these are good pain-killers.
Are the pain-killers related to the fungus?
Looking forward to more reactions to the NYer article, when everyone's able to get to it.
Meanwhile, I'm not sure what Richardson's chances were at the start of all this (and when was the start, exactly? hmm), but he just doesn't seem to be handling things well. The debate wasn't good, and I just looked at his website:
http://www.richardsonforpresident.com/
OOF! That is an absolutely awful picture. (Loosened tie, rumply shirt, then airbrushed weirdness for his face -- just hits all kinds of wrong notes.)
Soz,
Thought you might like this description someone wrote on their Obama blog:
Quote:Yesterday,while watching Fox Cable News with Brit Hume,I saw everything I needed to know about our candidate for President,Senator Barack Obama. During a free fish fry held by the democratic party of South Carolina, a number of the candidates, Senator Dodd, Senator Biden, Senator Clinton, Senator Obama and Governor Richardson were standing on a platform in an area, somewhat enclosed, chuming around and having a good time(as best I can tell).
Senators Biden,Dodd and Obama had their sleeves rolled up(and no tie) while Governor Richardson wore a tie with a sports jacket. Senator Clinton wore a pants suit and appeared overdressed for the occasion. As the other candidates continued chuming around on this platform, Hillary remained in the background seeming isolated and starstruck of the whole occasion and goings on. Seeing Hillary's withdrawal, Barack casually put his arm around her,welcomed her into the fold of the event, brought her to the front of the platform where she acknowledged she had never seen such an inviting get together.
Now if that doesn't show the character of this man, nothing will. He's embracing, inclusive, and as inviting a candidate as we will ever see. Forget the debates, forget posturing and appearances. What Senator Obama showed me was worth its weight in gold. You can't teach what he did. You're either born with it or you're not. The warmth, charm and charisma he exudes is magical, rare and in short supply in the political world. It's a characteristic no one can ever take away and who would be crazy enough to want to? This process and these republicans might not always agree with all of his positions on the issues, but they would be fools to question his character. There is no one better. He is the democratic standout. It would be criminal to deny him the nomination. It would be insane to deny him the Presidency.
Priceless description of a priceless moment! I will have to go to his Blog now to read more!
The more I learn about this man, the more I like him. Authenticity.
Going to curl up with the NYer in a few minutes.
I've been looking at Richardson a bit and going 'oof', but what I've against him is hearsay. Will post on that when I'm surer footed.
Butrflynet, Best article I've read all year, and thanks to your post. Bush-cons will never understand what it's about.
The 30 April issue of the New Yorker arrived here yesterday, but the Obama article isn't in it. But the 7 May issue cant possibly out yet, right, it not being 7 May yet an' all? I dont understand..
Old Europe. Can't Keep Up Europe. Way Back On The Curve Europe.
Perhaps you can have the copy shipped over from Kontemporary Kazakhstan.
Yeah, it's in the May 7th issue.
I usually get the New Yorker delivered the Wednesday or Thursday BEFORE the (Monday) publication date. (So for example for this one, the publication date is May 7th, I got it May 2nd.)
And the online version usually appears a full week before the publication date.
Nice description, Butrflynet.
Glad you liked the article, c.i.
I think I know what you mean, Osso, but will look forward to more from you re: Richardson.
sozobe wrote:Yeah, it's in the May 7th issue.
I usually get the New Yorker delivered the Wednesday or Thursday BEFORE the (Monday) publication date. (So for example for this one, the publication date is May 7th, I got it May 2nd.)
OK, thats just weird
In case any of you already received Monday's newspaper too, by how much will Sarkozy win the French elections?
It is weird, I know. It's pretty common for magazines, in fact I'm not sure if they do it any other way. It probably dates from when it would take a long time to get from wherever it was printed to the person's hands; if they wanted it to arrive on Monday May 7th, they'd have to ship it Monday April 30th (and then that interval has been shortened by better shipping methods, etc.). Or maybe it's a perk for subscribers, to get it before it goes on newsstands (I think it goes on newsstands on the day it's supposed to).
I dunno.
True of major features in newspaper magazines too, NYT magazine and such -- you can see it online I think a full week before it's in the Sunday paper.
I got my May 7th issue on May 3rd, which is typical. I failed to get to the Obama article because I was driven to read the article immediately before it, the amazingly weird-to-me piece on Paolo Coehlo; I was repeatedly falling asleep and waking up, trying to finish it again. There are cult aspects to the Coehlo phenomenon...
I turned the page after I did finish it and saw the Obama double page photo. The juxtaposition set me back a bit. Not that I think Obama is a cult phenomenon but I'd rather not have that develop and I sort of smell the possibilities of that, at the same time he can also be hated for stupid reasons.
That makes sense, Osso.
I always flip through first, and when I did I saw the picture, freaked, posted here, then read the article. Haven't read the Coehlo one yet.
I vary. Sometimes I read the cartoons first...
anyway, will catch the Obama article later today.
Check this out:
Quote:Obama beats the leading Republicans by larger margins than any other Democrat: besting Giuliani 50 to 43 percent, among registered voters; beating McCain 52 to 39 percent, and defeating Romney 58 percent to 29 percent.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18505030/site/newsweek/page/2/
(Hillary, meanwhile, has the thinnest margins of the big 3.)
