Obama Neuralgia
John Edwards won 61 delegates before dropping out. He's now reportedly considering whether to endorse Hillary or Obama — given the closeness of the race he could swing one or the other over the top. I'm still not so sure he's going to endorse either but if he does I hope it's Obama. Great, substantive differences exist between the two remaining candidates, having more to do with political philosophy than with particular policies, such that it is unfair in the extreme to characterize them both as corporate sock-puppets.
The best (albeit still incomplete) description of their differences that I've seen comes from George Lakoff, who says that people trust Obama but not Clinton and that, moreover, Clinton doesn't understand the essence of trust. Because trust is a two-way street, having it means that a leader is potentially capable of making huge changes, doing great things, that always remain beyond the grasp of the coldly calculating.
One problem for Obama is that certain people not only don't understand the nature of a relationship of trust between a political leader and the public, they fear it, or perhaps even actively hate all forms of it. Thus David Plotz, deputy editor at Slate, says Obama's style shares much in common with fascist dictators such as Mussolini. Paul Krugman attacks indirectly, flipping his own projections to claim that Obama's supporters, dripping with hatred, are turning democratic politics into Nixon-land. And even Sam Smith — who I greatly admire and who should know better — speculates whether Obama may have narcissistic personality disorder. No Moses for these men.
The fact is, if you can get people to agree with you you can get things done. The strongest part of Obama's record comes from his time as an Illinois state senator when he consistently did exactly that, earning great admiration from both sides of the aisle. I've linked to this essay by Charlie Peters before, which explains some of Obama's accomplishments in Illinois, and I do encourage skeptics to read it.
OK, we don't know in detail what Obama's agenda might be. And from a foreign policy point of view many/most of his advisors are questionable, at best. But arguably, Obama has more potential than the others. And at this point, I think, considerably less downside risk. An Obama/Edwards ticket would be most welcome. Short of that an Edwards endorsement would be helpful.
Posted by George Kenney on February 11, 2008 4:57 PM 
« McCain vs. ? | Main | Apple Aches »
Comments
I thought I was a cynic, but I'm getting enthusiastic about Obama. First of all, a look at his website shows he is actually fairly specific about getting us out of Iraq, without rushing it. Of course, one can never be sure what any president will do under all circumstances. No absolute promise can ever be made. Therefore, the question of trust, as you put it, is essential. I would broaden that to character. Having watched Obama, I just have a gut feeling that his character is far better than Hillary or McCain. Call me naive, but that's ultimately what we must go on. And he has that gravitas that might earn the respect to get things done. And don't forget, he's Harvard Law School smart. Brains matter too. If the party-hack superdelegates throw it for Hillary, there might be a riot at the convention!
Posted by: benjamin777
|
February 12, 2008 2:41 PM
I doubt he is a narcissist. His wife was interviewed on Larry King last night. She describes him as a good human being, who always makes it a point to attend his children's activities at school. A narcissist wouldn't do that. On the other hand, George Bush is a good candidate for the disorder.
Posted by: Judy | February 12, 2008 6:03 PM
George says the their differences are more philosophical — not so much on policy.
If that is correct are the philosophic differences that important? Both want to increase the size of the military. Both say we will be in Iraq until at least 2013.
I would tolerate a candidate I disagreed with philosophically if they could be trusted to roll back the Empire.
I also caution against making judgments about a candidate based upon what a spouse says on TV in the middle of a campaign. (In '92 Hillary vouched for Bill's character on 60 Minutes.)
Posted by: butch in Waukegan | February 12, 2008 10:57 PM
I'm starting to think that presidential appointments may be more important than who actually gets elected. The most important may be who gets picked for Attorney General. It will be crucial to find someone with enough insider experience to put the Justice Department back together, and the tenacity to hold the Bush administration and war profiteers, and wall street accountable for their actions over the last 8 years. Fitzgerald? Spitzer, Maybe? Has there been any discussion of this?
Posted by: Peter_BK | February 13, 2008 12:30 AM
Have any of the remaining candidates gone on the record about military tribunals? Everyone wants to close Gitmo, but I haven't seen any specific statements from Obama/Clinton/McCain on whether they would continue terrorist trials by tribunal, or reset the clock and bring suspects before civil courts... just wondering if anyone knows where the candidates stand.
Posted by: Richard
|
February 13, 2008 3:55 PM