Posts
Wednesday, October 29, 2008
Charles Meets Obama.
This was just a nice reminder of what a lot of this is about to so many people. I can sit here and dissect strategy and policy until I'm blue in the face, but for a lot of people - myself included - this election, and Barack Obama, goes beyond just that.
Submit This Article!
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
It's a bit dusty in here....
http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=OGFhOWY3YTZkMzliYjFjYTlkMjNjMGNhMTc3ZjYyMWM=&w=MA==
I know you will crush the source - But you should read the article. It is an interesting take.
Hey, I read National Review almost every day.
I think this article hits on some really good points. The public financing charge is the biggest legitimate critique of Obama, outside of the experience argument. I think the author is largely right on this point. I've always had mixed feelings on campaign finance reform, and I continue to have mixed feelings on it.
Related to the VP candidates, I think this is McCain's own fault - and I don't think you can blame the media entirely. People wanted - and still want - to know about Sarah Palin. And the fact is, the media has a duty to inform us about her - and they had a much steeper hill to climb with her than they do with Biden. They had to start from nothing, whereas the country at least had a familiarity with Biden. Had McCain chosen Pawlenty or Romney or Lieberman or Ridge, I would guarantee there would be more balanced coverage between McCain's veep and Biden. The focus on Palin was wrought by her inexperience - which is part of the reason why the media gave so much attention to Obama in the first place. People want to know about them because they're gathering a lot of support. Obama had almost 2 years for the media to look into his past; there was a much shorter window with Palin, and thus, more focus was granted her over Biden. And finally - people are more interested in Obama than Biden. Coverage of the Democratic ticket goes to Obama, whereas McCain deliberately shifted the coverage of his campaign to Palin. You can't have it both ways.
On the third point, I just think the author is wrong. I personally think the associations argument is horribly weak and has been used for lack of a better argument. And if you look at the narrative that has been present throughout Obama's political career - which you can see the seeds of in Dreams from My Father - the overall narrative is the same: change begins at the ground up, not the top down, and that politics needs to be altered to reflect that reality. To me, that is the overarching theme and purpose of the Obama presidential bid, and I think it has been consistent throughout his career. Evolving positions on other issues are to be expected - and if you're me, to be demanded. I don't want a demagogue in the White House.
And lastly, the socialism argument is just false. To criticize Obama as a "socialist" for revisiting tenants of a graduated tax plan - which McCain has not suggested eliminating, by the by - is misleading and false. Was Bill Clinton a socialist? Because essentially, this is returning to many of the tenants of the Clinton economic plan in the '90s.
So that's my response to the article. Again, I can't argue the financing question - but I think the remaining three are less valid.
The socialism argument holds water because a socialist isn't just a person who advocates for a graduated tax plan but someone who spreads the wealth around all individuals, which Obama is doing by essentially giving 30% of the electorate welfare checks in the form of tax credits.
Post a Comment