Let me share something a friend of mine passed along from "the other side of the aisle."
For folks that claim "we don't know much" about Barack Obama, the Wall Street Journal editorial board seems to have a lot of opinions about him.
This piece is more talking point ("circa 1965") than tacit analysis. It's obvious that they're not part of the ever-irritating group of folks who still claim that Obama doesn't offer specifics or that he's all hat, no cattle. (Perhaps they were the kids in high school that had their homework done for them.)
No, the WSJ seems to know quite a bit about Obama and his record. While distorting a point or two (to be kind) about his record, the writers seem pretty well acquainted with Obama's political resume. This speaks to a larger issue - how can the Right claim that no one knows Obama, yet seek to define him so specifically? Seems contradictory, at best.
Take the passage about Obama's connections to Trinity UCC and "controversial" clergy that have preached there. I haven't seen anything more disingenuous, at least today. (And tomorrow's filled with possibility.) They spend four paragraphs essentially saying, "We know everything Obama's said and projected himself to be is not in line with what these nutbags have said, but how can we really be sure?"
They're sure, all right - sure to drop more coded, racialized language into the public discussion. This has nothing to do with getting to know Obama the man, or Obama the politician. It's just more of the same win-at-all-costs, scorched-earth politics, with the American voter's intelligence scattered all about as collateral damage.
And the sad thing is that many believe that we're poised to have a good campaign this fall that will give America the debate it needs. Too bad that there seem to be forces out there that don't give a damn.
For folks that claim "we don't know much" about Barack Obama, the Wall Street Journal editorial board seems to have a lot of opinions about him.
This piece is more talking point ("circa 1965") than tacit analysis. It's obvious that they're not part of the ever-irritating group of folks who still claim that Obama doesn't offer specifics or that he's all hat, no cattle. (Perhaps they were the kids in high school that had their homework done for them.)
No, the WSJ seems to know quite a bit about Obama and his record. While distorting a point or two (to be kind) about his record, the writers seem pretty well acquainted with Obama's political resume. This speaks to a larger issue - how can the Right claim that no one knows Obama, yet seek to define him so specifically? Seems contradictory, at best.
Take the passage about Obama's connections to Trinity UCC and "controversial" clergy that have preached there. I haven't seen anything more disingenuous, at least today. (And tomorrow's filled with possibility.) They spend four paragraphs essentially saying, "We know everything Obama's said and projected himself to be is not in line with what these nutbags have said, but how can we really be sure?"
They're sure, all right - sure to drop more coded, racialized language into the public discussion. This has nothing to do with getting to know Obama the man, or Obama the politician. It's just more of the same win-at-all-costs, scorched-earth politics, with the American voter's intelligence scattered all about as collateral damage.
And the sad thing is that many believe that we're poised to have a good campaign this fall that will give America the debate it needs. Too bad that there seem to be forces out there that don't give a damn.
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home