Wednesday, April 30, 2008
Tuesday, April 29, 2008
Rabbit in the Hat?
Just a quick thought that occurred to me while reading Obama's "outraged" comments on Rev. Wright.
Its been suggested that perhaps the Clinton campaign is behind Wright's recent resurfacing. My thought is this: maybe its the Obama campaign that is working in concert with Wright. Sure, it would be a gamble, bringing him back to the national spotlight now. But if Obama really believes he has the nomination virtually wrapped up--then why not? Have Wright make a couple of outrageous speeches and give Obama a second chance to really separate himself, to perhaps call a press conference just for the sake of doing so. Then, by the time the general election rolls around--Obama has stripped the McCain campaign of the ammunition it would take from the Wright situation. Certainly the Republicans won't let it drop that easily, but the thinking could be that the American people will respect and better understand Obama if, now that the first strategy, the race speech, didn't make the issue go away completely, he now calls a press conference because of NEW Wright comments and slams him, condemns him and completely severs all ties.
I could see that being an effective strategy for Obama.
Of course, its far more likely that this quick little thought of mine is wrong and that it is more conventional politics being played out . . .
Its been suggested that perhaps the Clinton campaign is behind Wright's recent resurfacing. My thought is this: maybe its the Obama campaign that is working in concert with Wright. Sure, it would be a gamble, bringing him back to the national spotlight now. But if Obama really believes he has the nomination virtually wrapped up--then why not? Have Wright make a couple of outrageous speeches and give Obama a second chance to really separate himself, to perhaps call a press conference just for the sake of doing so. Then, by the time the general election rolls around--Obama has stripped the McCain campaign of the ammunition it would take from the Wright situation. Certainly the Republicans won't let it drop that easily, but the thinking could be that the American people will respect and better understand Obama if, now that the first strategy, the race speech, didn't make the issue go away completely, he now calls a press conference because of NEW Wright comments and slams him, condemns him and completely severs all ties.
I could see that being an effective strategy for Obama.
Of course, its far more likely that this quick little thought of mine is wrong and that it is more conventional politics being played out . . .
When Politics Loses Its Ideas . . .
Here is an interesting article from Slate.com about post-modern or post-ideological politics. I think it sounds interesting, but I think that, as the author points out- the Democratic Primary shows that when politics loses its ideas it becomes abominable. When there are few policy choices between candidates, an election becomes personal and bitter.
A brief larger point to be made from this is that, this is what has made American politics so bitterly partisan and has turned people off from the process. Republicans and Democrats fight each other bitterly, but its more over the title that follows their name, rather than the ideas they hold.
An interesting exercise I have tried several times is to read about a piece of legislation and ignore who supports it or who is against it-- and make up your own mind. I know it sounds simple and it is because it is what most Americans actually do. Not in Washington and not in state capitols around this nation. Most often, the yeas and nays are lined up on the basis of who proposes the idea. In these hallowed halls, policy, ideas and direction are lost in a void of politics. The ideas that once separated Republicans and Democrats have been erased by the one common denominator--money.
A brief larger point to be made from this is that, this is what has made American politics so bitterly partisan and has turned people off from the process. Republicans and Democrats fight each other bitterly, but its more over the title that follows their name, rather than the ideas they hold.
An interesting exercise I have tried several times is to read about a piece of legislation and ignore who supports it or who is against it-- and make up your own mind. I know it sounds simple and it is because it is what most Americans actually do. Not in Washington and not in state capitols around this nation. Most often, the yeas and nays are lined up on the basis of who proposes the idea. In these hallowed halls, policy, ideas and direction are lost in a void of politics. The ideas that once separated Republicans and Democrats have been erased by the one common denominator--money.
The Dirty D Living Up to its Name
I love the city of Detroit with all of my heart! I went to law school there and even though I didn't move there until I was an adult, I grew up there in a sense. I have the fondest memories of Detroit and want nothing but the best for the city. Which leads me to my anger over what has gone on there recently. I supported Mayor Kilpatrick for re-election because I believed that, while he had his issues, he had the best interest of the city in mind, and I had seen the improvement to back up that belief.
Now however, it is clear that the Mayor is not looking out for the city, but is looking out for his own self-interest. I am all for standing up and fighting when you are wronged, but his failure to resign in the midst of the text message scandal and the perjury and obstruction of justice charges he faces, is a slap in the face to the city of Detroit. It has taken away from the functioning of the city, it is embarassing the city and causing more and more harm to its already irreparable reputation. Newspaper stories such as this are not the kind of press that the city needs. It is an embarassment, and the only way to immediately tamp down the embarassment, is for the Mayor to step aside and put an end to the public flogging of the city.
Now however, it is clear that the Mayor is not looking out for the city, but is looking out for his own self-interest. I am all for standing up and fighting when you are wronged, but his failure to resign in the midst of the text message scandal and the perjury and obstruction of justice charges he faces, is a slap in the face to the city of Detroit. It has taken away from the functioning of the city, it is embarassing the city and causing more and more harm to its already irreparable reputation. Newspaper stories such as this are not the kind of press that the city needs. It is an embarassment, and the only way to immediately tamp down the embarassment, is for the Mayor to step aside and put an end to the public flogging of the city.
Its Definitely an Election Year!
Look no further than this!
The sharks in the water . . . you get what I'm saying? In Florida . . .?
Okay, so that was cornball . . . but it gave me an opportunity to post a story about sharks and pictures of sharks, which I love and am a skosh obsessed with . . .
A New Divide?
There have always been divisions in American life, whether it be between rich and poor, or black and white (or other ethnic divisions), but David Brooks, in his NYTimes column this morning suggests that the primary division in our society currently, is a division of demography. He makes this point in the context of the Democratic party, but there is nothing in his thesis which limits it to political analysis or even limits it to a Democratic issue. He suggests that:
Fifty-five years ago, 80 percent of American television viewers, young and old, tuned in to see Milton Berle on Tuesday nights. Tens of millions, rich and poor, worked together at Elks Lodges and Rotary Clubs. Millions more, rural and urban, read general-interest magazines like Look and Life. In those days, the owner of the local bank lived in the same town as the grocery clerk, and their boys might play on the same basketball team. Only 7 percent of adult Americans had a college degree.
But that’s all changed. In the decades since, some social divides, mostly involving ethnicity, have narrowed. But others, mostly involving education, have widened. Today there is a mass educated class. The college educated and non-college educated are likely to live in different towns. They have radically different divorce rates and starkly different ways of raising their children. The non-college educated not only earn less, they smoke more, grow more obese and die sooner.
Retailers, home builders and TV executives identify and reinforce these lifestyle clusters. There are more niche offerings and fewer common experiences.
The ensuing segmentation has reshaped politics.
I think that Brooks makes an excellent, sociological point here; one that we can watch being played out in the Democratic primary (and to some extent we saw it play out in the Republican party as well.) It really is worth a read.
Fifty-five years ago, 80 percent of American television viewers, young and old, tuned in to see Milton Berle on Tuesday nights. Tens of millions, rich and poor, worked together at Elks Lodges and Rotary Clubs. Millions more, rural and urban, read general-interest magazines like Look and Life. In those days, the owner of the local bank lived in the same town as the grocery clerk, and their boys might play on the same basketball team. Only 7 percent of adult Americans had a college degree.
But that’s all changed. In the decades since, some social divides, mostly involving ethnicity, have narrowed. But others, mostly involving education, have widened. Today there is a mass educated class. The college educated and non-college educated are likely to live in different towns. They have radically different divorce rates and starkly different ways of raising their children. The non-college educated not only earn less, they smoke more, grow more obese and die sooner.
Retailers, home builders and TV executives identify and reinforce these lifestyle clusters. There are more niche offerings and fewer common experiences.
The ensuing segmentation has reshaped politics.
I think that Brooks makes an excellent, sociological point here; one that we can watch being played out in the Democratic primary (and to some extent we saw it play out in the Republican party as well.) It really is worth a read.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)