I could have said it better than Andrew Sullivan did, but I’m not getting paid as much to do so

Comments (9)

Trackback URL | Comments RSS Feed

1. Brian says:

   November 26, 2007 at 2:24 pm

   Excellent Article

2. liberalgeek says:

   November 26, 2007 at 2:48 pm

   It is. I started reading it a few weeks ago and got side-tracked. Thanks for posting it and prodding me.

   I think that it is odd that a Gay Conservative can have such insight into a Black Liberal, but I found it to be profound on many levels.

   It also said something that I have been feeling, but couldn’t enunciate. Continuing the Bush/Clinton/Bush/Clinton pattern is really just an extension of the duality of this country. It should be stopped, but it is hard for some to have the courage to change course.

   Thanks, DV.

3. Brian says:

   November 26, 2007 at 3:43 pm

   Can you imagine what it would be like if we only had the Bush/Clinton/Bush/Clinton dichatomy for the next 24 years at minimum….Worse we could have Jeb, Chelsea…and wind up with even more of the same…what thinks you guys and gals….

4. Steve Newton says:

   November 26, 2007 at 4:10 pm

   I’ve always told my students with regard to the 2000 election that in Bush and Gore we had two competing, multi-generational political elite families fighting for power, not a legitimate discussion. Even trying to distance himself from Clinton, Gore was still defined as part of the clintonbushclintonbush rotation.

   So there is a lot here in this article to think seriously about.

   But there needs to be a caution about electing a president for “What” he is (intergenerational, multiracial) rather than for “Who” he is.

   It is also a terrible comment on the poverty of our choices on both sides that in many ways this article is right: we’re down to damn near no choice at all.

5. Brian says:

   November 26, 2007 at 4:12 pm

   Well said Steve.

6. liberalgeek says:

   November 26, 2007 at 4:20 pm

   I saw Gore as a progression FROM the Clinton years. Sure he was a clinton guy, but most Presidents do hold some legacy connections to other Presidents (cabinet, staff, etc.).

   I am with you on the “What” of a candidate, but Sullivan definitely hits on some of the “Who’s” of Obama also. He is well-positioned in positions, but apparently without the Clinton triangulation.

   Then again, I have been pro-Obama for a long time, so I may just be seeing what I want to see. YMMV.

7. Steve Newton says:

   November 26, 2007 at 7:08 pm

   I meant that Gore failed miserably in the public eye to distinguish himself from the Clinton years, and also that the whole game that in terms of Bush-Gore we were really presented with a choice between competing American political dynasties.

8. Ryan says:

   November 26, 2007 at 7:32 pm

   Interesting article, and I also sing its praises today at JttR.

   I think we should ban all Boomers from politics in exchange for paying off their Social Security and Medicare. They’ve done enough damage. Let them rest in peace.

9. zemongoose says:

   November 27, 2007 at 3:50 pm

   It’s funny. This past summer my family and I were discussing the ineffectuality of the Democratic Congress and we got to talking about how the Vietnam era Democrats, from Biden to Kerry to the Clintons, all had this aura of embarrassment and shame regarding the 60’s. I suspected their votes for the Iraq War were an overcompensation driven by this shame.

   I found Sullivan’s argument for Obama very compelling. I’ve been curious as to the conservative support Obama has engendered, especially as he’s never sold out a core progressive value for the sake of appearing “bi-partisan”. I knew it was, in part, a matter of tone. Sullivan’s generational argument, though, hits the nail squarely on the head.