Just a slight clarification: the link was to an Op-Ed piece (Opinion-Editorial) by David Brooks. As such it isn’t necessarily intended to be “objective” in any journalistic sense of the word.
I know this is slightly off-topic, but as a former journalist of 12 years I can tell you there is no such thing as “objectivity” in reporting. Good reporters try to be “fair” or try to be obvious in their subjectivity, but no respectable journalist will ever tell you they can be completely objective about anything. We always choose who we’re going to quote and I guarantee you we choose the quote that best backs up our own belief on the topic at hand. Two different reporters from two different cultural backgrounds will write and do write completely different articles on the same event.
And yes, reporters love emotion, even fake emotion. That’s why we hound loved ones of people who have had something terrible happen to them. Of course, people go out and buy it so we’re all complicit. Anyway, the Clinton/Obama story is a good candidate for media frenzy because the Democrats will most likely either have a woman or an African-American candidate—both of which are unique scenarios that will sell papers.
Obama is a likable enough character, but it amuses me that people are so enthusiastic about his candidacy despite the fact that he has no executive experience.
I don’t know if that really matters, but Obama is an Illinois senator. Not only that, if you look back at some of the other- like Reagan, they didn’t have much either. Reagan was an actor and then some where along the line he was a governor of CA I believe. IMHO, he didn’t have much experience either, but in all honesty, he did better than Mr. Clinton. I don’t think Hillary has the guts to be pres.
I hate to start this, but how in the hell can you say Reagan was a better president than Clinton! Craziness!! He delegated everything, claimed ignorance of illegal activities by his underlings, consulted an astrologer for crhying out loud to determine his schedule, and clearly knew nothing about economics, foreign policy, or anything else of substance. He was a sweet old man who tried to make everyone feel good about being American and forget all the rough stuff from the 60s and 70s, but he was a horrible president.
And I don’t understand this continued harping on Hillary for lack of “guts.” What does that mean? GW has guts enough to invade any damn country he feels like. Is that what we want more of?
And you think Clinton was any better than Reagan? I don’t think so. As for guts, I don’t think the Shrub has guts either. He’s just a bully who talks to some Casper deity and bully’s, esp those with invisible friends, don’t have any guts either. BTW, I never voted for the Shrub either. Hillary, however, will probably start crying at the slightest insult though, esp if she cries over one primary loss. Obama has more guts because he is running and he’s not crying, at least not in public, over the NH loss and I hardly think he is a bully.
In all honesty, we’ve had too many crazy presidents lately. We need someone with some sanity.
So far the democratic vote is doing really well. Even in second place, Obama still got more votes than McCain in NH… it is strange how the media is not really making a big deal about that.
Richardson ended his bid today… people are already wondering if in case Clinton gets the nomination, he will be her vice.
The other days I was listening to my favorite morning radio show, Democracy Now with Amy Goodman. And there was a segment about the candidates’ advisers. Pretty interesting, and obviously scary, information. If you guys are interested in checking it out, here is the link:
I don’t want to get involved in this argument, but I’ll only say that as a President, Reagan played a better role he ever had in Hollywood, (he delivered the lines he was given, beautifully) and as far as Bill Clinton goies, he was the best Republican president we’ve had in fifty years.
Barack Obama was president of the Harvard Law Review. No one gets that post without having a superior intellect, and in his case he was black (the first) and had no political connections or legal background in his family. He had to do it completely on his own.
Jimmy Carter was ineffective because he tried to swim against the political tide. I value that, and in fact it’s exactly what we need in a leader, except for one little problem: it doesn’t work. Had we listened to him thirty years ago when he told us that energy independence was the moral equivalent of war, we wouldn’t be in this mess today. Tragically we didn’t, and tragically we’re still a nation of people living in comfort who aren’t inclinded to hear what we don’t wish to hear.
Reagan played tough guy to the Soviet Union, arguably hastening the collapse of Communism in Europe, but it was going to happen anyway. He ran as a budget balancer, but in fact he multiplied the federal debt. His real goal was to undermine the federal government. He succeeded in that, and maybe we needed a break so we could start over, but after 27 years it’s high time we did, hopefully with fewer programs and a lesser bureaucracy that pays attention to major issues. He also presided over a redistribution of wealth toward the already rich, which seems to be the single most consistent element in Republican presidencies. (Not sure about Eisenhower, Nixon and Ford in that regard.)
Of course, in the end I will be forced to vote for whatever democrat wins the primaries, in order to appease a disfunctional dualistic process that forces us to choose between two evils. But since it’s still only primary/caucus time I’m a bit surprised that, on a forum such as this, I do not see more supportive talk about Dennis Kucinich.
Kucinich is the only candidate who has shown a clear and unwaivering stance about providing comprehensive health care coverage for all Americans through a universal, non-profit, single payer system that is publicly financed and privately delivered. He doesn’t just speak the echoed rhetoric of the other democrats about “affordable quality medical care.” This seems to me something which many or most participants in this thread seem to want. I could be wrong.
Also, Kucinich has been the most consistent and clearly illustrative of serious about matters of a complete halt to US military violence in Iraq. He is also the most committed to animal welfare and environmental protection.
What ‘s the point, erasmus? As long as we judge people by their appearance, which we do, Kucinich doesn’t stand a chance. Call me a crazy, but even Dawkins, for example, owns a part of his success to his looks.
Yes George. Judging by polls, he probably doesn’t stand a chance. But that doesn’t mean that we should’t talk about him. After all, if we are to continue along that line of thinking than we shouldn’t bother talking about Hillary or Obama’s views either.
I voted democrat in the last election, and I didn’t even like what I perceived them as standing for. And regardless, I got four more years of “The Decider.” In case I sound defeatist, I should say that I do have hope. Not optimism, but hope. And hope ought to be enough to motivate action.
Do you really think that Hillary is a looker?
With Mitt Romney’s chiseled jaw-bone, I think that republicans must have this one in the bag. (Although, there is no doubt that Obama is a good looking guy too.)
The importance of Kucinich is that he is there. Obviously he doesn’t stand a chance, but the left side of the democratic party has to be represented, so people know about those ideas. He doesn’t have the looks or the money, but at least he is saying what the others wouldn’t have the guts to say. If they did, they would be out of the race the next minute. In his or Ron Paul’s case, they have nothing to lose… and we can’t say that many people who stop to listen to them don’t go wow.