Dr. Zaius has always been a true American hero for all apes to admire. We honor his service. Cornelius shouldn't even go there. What was he thinking?

Posted at July 1, 2008 10:01 PM in response to The REAL Barack Obama--Unmasking the Beast

Obama's campaign has mirrored that of Bill Clinton in 1992. He too took pains to distance himself from hot button issues that had riled conservatives and foiled liberals. He too called for reconciliation, unity and bridging the gap between left and right, liberal and conservative, black and white, religious and secular. He too promised a third way. He too was somewhat vague when it came to the details of how this would be accomplished.

Well, look what it got him. Krugman, in my view, was dead on when he said that leaders who have campaigned on specific platforms for change have had more success achieving that change. This would seem to be the perfect opportunity for such a campaign. Thus far, Obama seems fixated on running away from his party. It may get him elected, but it may also make it harder for him to achieve the change he promises.

I hope I'm wrong.

Posted at July 1, 2008 8:32 PM in response to Left-Right Reconciliation: Obama's Bittersweet Pill for us All

"What really matters to you: telecom immunity, or increased health, happiness and prosperity for everyone?"

Come on, babe. That's a false choice. When Obama says we have to move past partisan divisions, does that mean giving in to Republican positions that go against our core beliefs? (I wouldn't put FISA in this category, by the way, but I'm just saying.) Abortion? Progressive taxation? Affirmative action? Yes, the Republicans have used those as wedge issues to divide the electorate and stir up their base, but how exactly do we move past? If the past few weeks is any indication, that could mean compromising on fundamental and significant issues. That may be politically astute... or it may not. With the Republican brand so tarnished and the majority of Americans convinced we are on the wrong track, this could also be a time to set out a clear progressive agenda and bring people together behind it.

Posted at July 1, 2008 8:23 PM in response to Why did I support Obama?? Oh yeah, I remember...

Bunny:
I like Obama and agree that much of the sturm und drang coming from the left is overdone. I generally trust his instincts and don't begrudge his attempt to demonstrate his centrist bona fides, as any good politician must. And your post cleverly exposes the self-defeating self righteousness of some of his erstwhile supporters on the left.

A few points of my own.

Some of the frustration with Obama comes from Hillary supporters (or those like me who supported her tepidly but defended her avidly) who endured months of vitriolic denunciation of the Clintons' "triangulation" their centrism, their betrayal of progressive causes, their willingness to say or do anything to get elected, etc. Despite his less than stellar record on some issues, Obama was embraced wholeheartedly by the left, even as many of us pointed out that his positions were as much, if not more, centrist than HRC's. Now, in some quarters, the same traits Obama has shown that were vilified in the Clintons are embraced by the same crowd.

Additionally, Obama is in one sense reaping what he sowed. By presenting himself as a reformer who would transform politics, while leaving the specifics somewhat vague, Obama encouraged unrealistic expectations among some on the left. Of course, the evidence of his centrism was always there to see. But Obama raised the bar under which he is now being judged.

Finally, these aren't exactly trifling issues. Obama's turn to the center has been, to say the least, pronounced. As Paul Krugman pointed out in his latest column (which should have credited my own blog, I must say in all modesty), with the Republican brand so badly tarnished, this election carries the possibility of a real realignment. By embracing a vague mantra of change while supporting safe, centrist policies, Obama actually jeapardizes his chances of effecting the real, lasting change many of us hoped for. To quote Krugman (who, I say again, owes me a debt of gratitude):

"The Reagan-Clinton comparison suggests that a candidate who runs on a clear agenda is more likely to achieve fundamental change than a candidate who runs on the promise of change but isn’t too clear about what that change would involve.

Of course, there’s always the possibility that Mr. Obama really is a centrist, after all.

One thing is clear: for Democrats, winning this election should be the easy part. Everything is going their way: sky-high gas prices, a weak economy and a deeply unpopular president. The real question is whether they will take advantage of this once-in-a-generation chance to change the country’s direction. And that’s mainly up to Mr. Obama."

Posted at July 1, 2008 6:42 PM in response to The REAL Barack Obama--Unmasking the Beast

I suppose everyone knows that Obama's campaign "rejected" Gen. Clark's comments. For the reasons stated by Josh Marshall on the front page, I agree that this was a troubling move, intended to take the focus away from McCain's military record and to deflect the inaccurate perception that Clark was somehow calling that record into question. Far from it. Clark's comments were perfectly reasonable (except for the bit about executive experience). It goes without saying that McCain's experience as a POW has nothing to do with being President or Commander in Chief; no matter how regal that sounds, we're electing a civilian, not a military, leader. I felt the same way when the Dems trotted out Kerry's Vietnam experience. Utterly unnecessary and with the potential to bite you in the rear. Kerry's stunt at the convention was embarrassing and I knew right away that his experience would not insulate him against charges that he was "weak" on national security. Military service is relevant only to the extent that it reflects on a candidate's background and (gasp) character. Far more important are the lessons learned from the experience and the candidate's judgment. In the case of McCain, there is a strong argument that he has learned precisely the wrong lessons from his service and has consistently exercised poor judgment in these affairs. Not only on Iraq, but also in his full throated denunciation of the Clinton administration for not conducting a full scale ground invasion in the Balkans. Obama ran the judgment theme against Hillary to great effect. Why he would cede that ground now is beyond me.

But what do I know? Sure, America loves its war heroes. But that doesn't translate into wanting them as President. (i.e., Bob Dole and George HW Bush, war heroes, against Bill Clinton; George McGovern, war hero, against Richard Nixon; Jimmy Carter, naval officer, vs. Ronald Reagan, actor)

Posted at June 30, 2008 2:38 PM in response to Gen Clark's Long Campaign

Another hearty recommendation. So much of politics is subjective - tribal, really - that it is important to take a step back and examine your own thoughts and feelings. Particularly in insulated forums like this one where the tribal mentality can provoke heated reactions. Fitz2 does a nice job. On a related note, I posted a blog on Friday drawing a parallel between Obama's centrism as a candidate and the political tactic of triangulation, for which the Clintons have been so soundly criticized, sort of a challenge for Obama's more passionate supporters to distinguish between the two. By the end of the thread, I found myself agreeing with many of the commenters and disagreeing with (or at least questioning) my original post. Now, can everyone please applaud me for my open-mindedness?

Posted at June 30, 2008 11:31 AM in response to A Week of Lessons About Politics

My trajectory is similary to ex-journalist's, but now that I have been reminded, I will be sure to revisit the music of my youth. In the car... alone, of course.

Posted at June 30, 2008 9:16 AM in response to Yes

I was merely needling the illustrious Glad over his seemingly arbitrary policy. Why not just reply to comments that are worthy of it? In any event, I appreciate being liked, although I would prefer revered and have always wondered what it would be like to be feared, having never had the pleasure. I do not believe you are a troll, readytoblow, even by the absurdly broad definition of the word some here would like to apply (i.e., anyone who challenges the nominee on any subject). I have always felt a bit of a disconnect between the screenname and the mostly measured persona reflected in your comments (although I think on my thread last week you did ask whether someone was drunk). I am a busy person. I have a regular job, although one which provides me with a measure of flexibility, and a 14-month-old little girl. This internet thing can eat up enormous amounts of time. I wonder how some of the more prolific posters do it.

Posted at June 30, 2008 9:09 AM in response to The TPM comment poliicy

I saw Yes "in the round" at Madison Square Garden when I was in 9th grade. My parents drove us in from the burbs. We bought some black hash at the show, though I don't think it had much of an effect, and a black concert t-shirt that I wore until it was ragged. In those years I would smoke large quantities of bad pot, close my eyes and listen to their epic live album at excruciating volume on the headphones while my parents wondered what kind of strange and addled offspring they had begotten. At school, my friends and I would study their sci-fi album covers and marvel at the musicianship of "classically trained" Steve Howe, Rick Wakeman and Chris Squire. By the end of high school, I moved on and saw them as just so much cosmic debris. Every now and then, I will hear "Roundabout" or "And You and I" and be reminded of my awkwardness and innocence in those times. I can't say I think they earned a place in the rock history pantheon (sorry, don't mean to burst your bubble - to each his own), but they will always hold a special, slightly uncomfortable place in my heart.

Posted at June 29, 2008 10:46 PM in response to Yes

Olberman is a clown and a jerk. I never found him watchable. His only saving grace was his disdain for O'Reilly. That success has now made him equally odious. I learned from the New Yorker article that he's from my hometown, although he went to private school, and is just a few years older than I am. But Mr. Glad, did you not violate your recently minted rule by responding to Gasket?

I want to reiterate my endorsement of the link downthread to an article on how the internet is changing literary style. An excerpt (without the block quote - beyond my primitive capability):

"This willingness in readers to overlook form raises a question as to whether online writing entertains, in the traditional sense of the word. I am not sure that it does. Reading online does not seem to me to be a pleasure in itself but a response to irritation. That is, it is not like eating an ice cream cone; it is like scratching an itch. I am only reporting on my own feelings here, of course, but while I am doing so, let me report a further kink in them. Between us, my boyfriend and I subscribe to more than a dozen magazines, and if I pick one up, I know instantly that I am goofing off. Online reading, however, fails to set off my leisure detection system. Part of the failure may be perceptual—online reading takes place while I'm sitting in front of my laptop, immobilized, as I am when working. But I think, too, that online writing may, even in its supposedly silly moments, be covertly work-like: there is a fair amount of tedium in its unedited prose. Many of the jokes and references are only comprehensible to regular visitors. No one, my hit counter tells me, reads blogs on the weekend. And reading online prose is not refreshing. An action movie leaves the viewer juiced; a novel may leave the reader wistful. But reading blogs, in my experience, leaves me more addled and nervous than when I began. This work-like character makes the internet particularly corrosive , by the way, to the productivity of those who work at home, such as writers. Through web browsing, the freelancer communes with the procrastinating office drone—at his peril, because the freelancer receives no weekly paycheck."

Posted at June 29, 2008 10:32 PM in response to The TPM comment poliicy