The NYT has endorsed Barack Obama (next to a picture of Abraham Lincoln. Hint hint). Charles Krauthammer has endorsed John McCain. (And before you jump down my throat for the audacity of positioning Krauthammer as the equal of the editorial board of the New York Times, bear in mind that Krauthammer is one talented commentator with a few assistants, and the editorial board of the NYT is a small group of journalists, none of them individually as influential as Krauthammer - so positioning them next to each other isn't so outlandish).
Neither of these endorsements is remotely surprising. Any other result would have been news so startling it would have made the front page of the New York Times (ah... Well, forget I said it). Actually, the only serious endorsement out there that is in any way not fully obvious in advance is that of the Economist, next week, and they're going to flow with the tide and endorse Obama, just wait and see.
Still, one can make a number of comments about the Krauthammer-NYT comparision. In a nutshell, the NYT backs Obama for being a healer; Krauthammer supports McCain for being a fighter. These two preferences are the result of a deeper difference of opinion, where the NYT feels that top-notch human-relations skills, such as they think Obama has, will tame the world, while Krauthammer feels that at this moment in time (and perhaps always) the world is a very dangerous place, no matter how good the American president is at diplomacy.
So that's an interesting contrast.
Does history prove the consistent veracity of either set of propositions? Is it possible to make a general rule that this side or that is more convincing, given the precedents? No. Not that I can see. The world really is a nasty place and will remain so, but healers can make a difference sometimes and when so it's a fine thing; fighters sometimes heal the world without fighting, and healers sometimes go to war. Just some obvious examples off the top of my head: Johnson was a healer who went to war. Reagan was a warrior who contributed more than most to healing the world. De Gaulle was a warrior who healed. Wilson was a healer who went to war.
The non-interesting contrast is about the way they interpret the campaigns. I don't think anyone would dispute that Obama has run a magnificent campaign, one of the best ever. The NYT feels this proves his ability to manage the world, which is more or less what the president of the US tries to do; for the life of me I can't say why they feel this. They then lambast McCain for running a nasty campaign, and deduce from it that he has lost the qualities they liked about him for decades, and disqualifies him to be president. Hogwash, of course. The first George Bush ran an extremely nasty campaign (remember Willie Horton), then went on to run the world in the way the NYT yearns for Obama to do, with diplomacy, coalition building etc, and still the NYT was against him. Campaigns are narrowly focused things: you know who you're up against, you know the rules of winning, you know the date of the decision, and that's it. Doesn't resemble the real world in any parameter.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
FROM CAROL HERMAN
With so many people around the world paying attention to the Obama/McCain fight ... I think it might be worth knowing:
LOSERS GET NASTY
When you figure out that you've got no plans that are adhering to the psyche of the electorate ... And, then you see McCain NASTY! You have to ask yourselves this ...
ACORN. AYERS. It's been out there now for months on end. Add the "code word" socialist. And, you see a new word to replace the old "n" word. That's all.
McCain left Bush's White House, during the president's called meeting on the bailout ... because he couldn't stand the Black man!
They say McCain has no control of his temper. Well? He exited a meeting held in the White House. He just got up and ran out the door. You think that was logical?
McCain doesn't have the temperament to be president. Can he win?
Well, then, you think being nasty is a workable tactic? I tend to think of it in distain.
But we won't know for sure until 11/4. And, then? The count divides into 50 states. And, the ways the States pick their winners ... will dictate how the Electoral College votes are apportioned.
For some reason, early on, the GOP thought Obama was easier to beat than Hillary. In something Rush Limbaugh called "Operation Chaos," he suggested to his listeners ... since they didn't particularly care for McCain ... To go out and register as democrats; to toss the race to Obama.
Obama was supposed to be beatable. Because he's Black.
May turn out to be among the worst bets made by the GOP?
Dubya's been a disaster.
Which is a good thing.
Who wanted his Saudi pals to gain Mideast territory?
You think "that" story is hard to tell? I think it's rather easy to figure out. Dubay went into the pockets of the Saud's. Leaving the Saud's with nothing. (What did it cost the Saud's? Hard to tell. Since they fund the madrasses. But the sunnis are hated, for the most part, in Iran, and in 2/3rds of Irak.)
This American misadventure has been a foolish quest. Dunno if we can leave fast enough. But I doubt if Maliki gets more than what he can get when he attacks the remnants of the sunnis. And, the Kurds? Hopefully, ahead, they can make their own deals. But they've got Turkey. And, Russia. To cause concerns.
What did Dubya's behaviors buy? TROUBLE.
You expected something different?
Both McCain and Dubya are rebelious sons. The bane of their fathers' existences. Both fathers were always pulling their sons out of hot water.
So, it's a good think if McCain fails, ahead.
A great thing, if we can finally get rid of the religous evils!
One thing about AMerica, that goes back to its FOUNDING. The Separation of Church and State!
I won't be disappointed IF today's AMericans deliver a blow to those church idiots who want to dictate. And, who saw their powers in how many people they could sit on the "bench of nine."
Unity? You thought Bush was a "uniter." Nah. If that label went to anyone, it would go to FDR. Who saw UNITED NATIONS writ large.
And, then? America got taken to the cleaners.
So here we are. Again. At the cleaners.
FROM CAROL HERMAN (for a change)
Ya know, part of what lays ahead is going to be an evaluation. For argument's sake: Because it appears likely the GOP loses in a lot of races, that what could be discussed ahead ... were the choices made.
In other words? Dubya, for instance, had choice to make. He listened to his gut. (And, he listened to his dad's friends when they touted the Saud's as becoming the new leadership in the hiararchy of Mideast politics.)
What do you already know?
Me? I know that trying to affect destiny is a loser's choice.
And, I know Dubya made many loser's choices along the way. Whom, for instance, did he listen to? And, why did Dubya think he had God all tied up?
Seems to me a good way to lose when you gamble is to go and think you can change destiny.
How did republicans end up on this track? Seems easy enough to understand. They saw the coming race as a battle between a GOP hopeful; hardly likely to appeal to more than half the voting public.
And, then? They saw Obama as a Black man. And, in racist minds that equals "you lose." Because? Not enough people would vote for the Black man.
Half the argument, ahead? Will come from sounds "IT WAS STOLEN" ... Again, as proof? Black men can't win.
McCain, meanwhile, has turned into an aging Dubya. Can't give a speech worth much. A man who plays at politics with throwing the worst dirt ya can find. And, then screaming out that he's the White guy. So you can go and trust him.
And, he's harnessed up his crazy religious base.
And, ya know what? Go ahead. Play with destiny all you want. But it's not your playing field. After all, destiny doesn't have to land on RACIST cards!
And, yes. Not only can McCain lose; he can lose the way Herbert Hoover lost. Tossing out the chances the GOP had, to muster support across the nation.
Once every four years, in America, the whole country votes, together. And, the majesty of the voting process ... pulls all the votes together ... So you get to see the pulse of the nation.
Just by satisfying "more than half" the People.
Is politics dirty? Yup. About as sexy as a whore house. Where, business is usually good. And, men are parted from their money. Exchanging a "quick fix" for dreams.
In America's "two party system" ... what comes out is CHOICE. Sometimes? Well, people who vote say they're holding their noses.
Can you tell that destiny predicts the Black man wins?
It was so stupid of the GOP "insiders" to try and make the presidential nominee stumble because he's Black.
Yes, Mitt Romney stumbled because he's Mormon.
And, Jews? Never, ever, get the chance.
Still, Jews in America vote.
And, they've voted with their hearts. With family stories going back to 1932. And, how FDR was the one. A cripple. Go figa.
Or? Learn. Do not fight destiny.
And, certainly don't get ugly about it.
On November 5th, I can almost guarantee this, there will be a lot of books disecting this campaign.
What will you be viewing ahead? Destiny only knows.
Post a Comment