POLITICS: Obama & Bush

It's an interesting read. It overlooks some stuff that I consider important, though. Let's see ...

>> No longer, apparently, does he distrust Hillary’s “judgment,” as he did during the debates when he denounced her vote on the Iraq War resolution. Now, all is forgiven. <<

They're not buddies; plainly they still disagree on many things. However, it looks like they're prepared to be coworkers. If two people can set aside their differences and use their skills together, I think that's a good thing, because the world needs a lot more of it than we're getting yet.

>>Neither has ever negotiated anything or dealt with diplomatic issues.<<

That's exaggeration. Both of them have negotiated plenty of things, just haven't had the opportunity for foreign policy yet. That other experience will be plenty useful -- and what's more, they have different styles. Hillary negotiates with the ruthless precision of a career politician. Obama negotiates with the spiralling cooperation that's typical of Eastern influence. Put the linear and the concentric together and the result is a spiderweb that few issues could escape.

If it works, of course. It might or might not. It will be interesting to see if they really can manage teamwork.

>> And then there is the question of whether we want a Secretary of State who is compromised, in advance, by her husband’s dealings with repressive regimes in Kuwait, Kazakhstan, Dubai, the UAE, Morocco, and governments about which we know nothing. <<

This is simultaneously a guilt-by-association logical fallacy and pot calling kettle black. Hillary deserves a chance to succeed or fail on her own account, not her husband's -- he's even willing to quit that charity thing he's been running so she can serve. And the last 8 years have seen the Republican government dealing with all kinds of obnoxious governments.

>> While Obama was not the early favorite of his party, he does not need to defer so ostentatiously to those who fought him for the nomination. <<

It's halfway through the article before the strong points appear; I wouldn't have read this far if it hadn't been something you recommended. It's Obama's nature to be a bridgeworker and he's good at it. I suspect he can make this work. But other presidents have tried similar things that failed spectacularly; that's important to remember.

>> But his promise of change has proven so bankrupt that maybe the rest of his candidacy is too.<<

The piece of strategizing I see in Obama's early moves is this: he has to convince the members of the system that he's not going to destroy their livelihood, he has to keep the system running. Because if it looks like he's really going to Change Everything Right Now, they'll shut down the whole shebang so he can't do anything. That's happened before when a president didn't have the support of the rest of the government.

And there, I think, is the real disconnect: Obama doesn't think like most other politicians. He thinks collectively more than individually, for all he's a charismatic leader. He's a "we" man, not an "I" man. The political system doesn't quite know what to do with that, because it's a fundamentally different approach. His success ultimately comes down to how good he is at creating cohesion from disparate pieces. That's one of his strong points. Is he stronger than the centrifugal force of partisan politics? We'll find out.

If you can find more analytical stuff, it's welcome. This does, however illuminate to me how I use filters in picking which articles to share. If I throw out a liberal piece, it's usually because the thing is froo-froo and short on facts; if I throw out a conservative piece, it's usually for vituperation and logical fallacies. When you're shooting yourself in the foot, it makes a difference whether you're aiming for the left one or the right one! So that was interesting too.

I think I'd have been more impressed if it had less of a slant and more direct arguments. It's not as if there's a shortage of rope for Hillary to hang herself with. I think she's grown over the years, though. The most telling argument regarding her behavior is saying that how she handled the appointment is likely how she'll handle the office, and all that leakage and dancing around and spotlighting was tacky.

I try to follow other viewpoints because it adds up to better data. These are potential problems I can watch for -- and some were things I hadn't spotted yet. If Hillary makes a habit of trying to steal the show from Obama, I want to be ready for that so I can discourage it and/or rustle up some extra support for what he's doing if it's stuff I approve. If Obama's desire for bridgework makes him surround himself with too much competition, I want to be ready to say, "Dude, swap out some of these folks for allies; they're not helping."

Like this?
http://www.discord.org/~lippard/wilson-review.html