<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>
<feed xmlns="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
   <title>threevalued&apos;s Blog</title>
   <link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/talk/blogs/threevalued/" />
   <link rel="self" type="application/atom+xml" href="http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/talk/blogs/threevalued/atom.xml" />
   <id>tag:tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com,2009:/talk/blogs/threevalued//2853</id>
   <updated>	2009-01-08T12:34:38Z	2009-01-08T03:04:17Z	2009-01-08T02:50:22Z	2009-01-07T23:36:33Z	2009-01-07T02:40:17Z	2009-01-07T00:03:47Z	2009-01-06T23:59:01Z	2009-01-06T23:51:51Z	2009-01-06T23:39:27Z	2009-01-06T23:39:10Z	2009-01-06T23:32:26Z	2009-01-06T23:30:46Z		2009-01-06T23:01:48Z	2009-01-06T20:55:50Z	2009-01-06T15:26:29Z	2009-01-06T14:22:01Z	2009-01-06T14:01:42Z	2009-01-06T06:12:41Z	2009-01-06T03:41:50Z	2009-01-06T03:13:48Z	2009-01-06T03:08:51Z			2009-01-06T01:49:06Z	2009-01-06T01:36:41Z	2009-01-06T01:23:42Z	2009-01-06T01:09:40Z</updated>
   
   <generator uri="http://www.sixapart.com/movabletype/">Movable Type Pro 4.21-en</generator>









	
        
			<entry>
            <id>tag:tpmelectioncentral.talkingpointsmemo.com,2008://9.248871-comment:3321301</id>
		    <link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://tpmelectioncentral.talkingpointsmemo.com/2008/12/are_obamas_new_politics_really.php#c3321301" />
		
		    <title><![CDATA[threevalued Commented on Are Obama&apos;s &quot;New&quot; Politics Really New? by Greg Sargent]]></title>
		        
			<published>2008-12-21T04:14:44Z</published>
			   <updated>2008-12-21T04:14:44Z</updated>
		    <content type="html" xml:lang="en" xml:base="">
		        <![CDATA[<p>  I apologize in advance if this is an old point, since I didn't have the patience to read 129 comments.  But it seems to me that this discussion (not just here) misses a key point:  Obama is not about "kumbaya" for the sake of peace and love; he is about making government an effective tool to deal with the urgent issues that require governmental action, but don't necessarily involve people's emotional and ideological commitments.  I was struck by the fact that at the end of <a href="http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2008/12/19/obama/index.html" rel="nofollow">Greemwald's post</a> he says the following:<br />
<blockquote>Ultimately, the reason politics is unavoidably "divisive" is because people have really divergent and irreconcilable views on passion-provoking controversies.  That's what politics is.  It's what it always has been.  At some point, Obama either will or won't repeal DOMA and don't-ask-don't-tell; he either will or won't rescind Bush's anti-abortion regulations and appoint new Supreme Court Justices likely to re-affirm Roe; he either will or won't close Gitmo; he either will or won't withdraw from Iraq; he either will or won't investigate Bush war crimes; he either will or won't deliver on his promises to unions, etc.  People feel very strongly -- and very differently -- about those issues. </blockquote><br />
Notice that this list does not include: solving the economic crisis, dealing with global warming, or improving education, to name just three salient issues.  Admittedly, people's ideological passions can intrude even in relatively objective cases like these, and one person's "pragmatism" may be another's "betrayal".  But there is still a clear difference, imho.  Obama seeks to build coalitions that can deal with problems of this order, without the intrusion of issues of the sort in the Greenwald quote above.</p>]]>
		    </content>
		    
		</entry>
        
    





	
        
			<entry>
            <id>tag:tpmelectioncentral.talkingpointsmemo.com,2008://9.248871-comment:3321300</id>
		    <link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://tpmelectioncentral.talkingpointsmemo.com/2008/12/are_obamas_new_politics_really.php#c3321300" />
		
		    <title><![CDATA[threevalued Commented on Are Obama&apos;s &quot;New&quot; Politics Really New? by Greg Sargent]]></title>
		        
			<published>2008-12-21T04:13:00Z</published>
			   <updated>2008-12-21T04:13:00Z</updated>
		    <content type="html" xml:lang="en" xml:base="">
		        <![CDATA[<p>  I apologize in advance if this is an old point, since I didn't have the patience to read 129 comments.  But it seems to me that this discussion (not just here) misses a key point:  Obama is not about "kumbaya" for the sake of peace and love; he is about making government an effective tool to deal with the urgent issues that require governmental action, but don't necessarily involve people's emotional and ideological commitments.  I was struck by the fact that at the end of <a href="http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2008/12/19/obama/index.html" rel="nofollow">Greemwald's post</a> he says the following:<br />
<blockquote>Ultimately, the reason politics is unavoidably "divisive" is because people have really divergent and irreconcilable views on passion-provoking controversies.  That's what politics is.  It's what it always has been.  At some point, Obama either will or won't repeal DOMA and don't-ask-don't-tell; he either will or won't rescind Bush's anti-abortion regulations and appoint new Supreme Court Justices likely to re-affirm Roe; he either will or won't close Gitmo; he either will or won't withdraw from Iraq; he either will or won't investigate Bush war crimes; he either will or won't deliver on his promises to unions, etc.  People feel very strongly -- and very differently -- about those issues. </blockquote><br />
Notice that this list does not include: solving the economic crisis, dealing with global warming, or improving education, to name just three salient issues.  Admittedly, people's ideological passions can intrude even in relatively objective cases like these, and one person's "pragmatism" may be another's "betrayal".  But there is still a clear difference, imho.  Obama seeks to build coalitions that can deal with problems of this order, without the intrusion of issues of the sort in the Greenwald quote above.</p>]]>
		    </content>
		    
		</entry>
        
    



</feed>

