Well, after eloquent statements by Julie and Peter, let me say: Hillary would very likely be a much better and certainly less dangerous president than Barack. I have that opinion, in part, because I think Bill was actually a good president in a number of ways. And in those areas where he was rather trashy, he’s certainly learned his lesson. Hillary wouldn’t be as good, but she’d certainly be competent on foreign policy. Compare her with the very inexperienced most liberal member of the Senate, about whom we have very little real to admire or trust.
But at this point, I repeat, I think that Hillary has very little chance of being nominated. And what she’d have to do to get nominated would cause lots of racial and generational strife. So at this point I’m for Obama, and not at all because I think he’d be easier to beat. He’s at least a two-touchdown favorite against McCain, for the reasons Bill Kristol, for example, outlined. The 50-50 split Michael Barone describes when looking at, say, 2004 is no longer the real situation in our country. The Democrats have a significant edge now.
I think Bill was actually a good president in a number of ways
Would you mind elaborating?
Was it the corruption, the left-wing court appointments, the lack of respect for America, the attempt at national healthcare, the tax hike, the NATO disaster in Serbia, what exactly did it for you Peter?
My Dear Clint: Allow me to make a gentle suggestion, (and I ask you to forgive my directness) but this is from an old man who although still loves the vigor found in youth, yet would like to moderate that passion sometimes for the sake of the conversation, as well as the persons involved. Perhaps you have learned this attack mode in law school, perhaps the words just sound more harsh because they are written, I don't know. Yet I don't remember you being so petulantly aggressive in our private or in class conversations. I remember your great virtues: You were a cowboy, a quiet gentle man. When you spoke, folks listened. I don't remember you being petulant or cruel or unjust. Please, continue to converse, even attack at times, but do it with a gentler touch.
Besides, Peter Lawler is a gentle soul, sweetly disposed, a fine (old) scholar and colleague, a smart man with many friends, and one who happens to be willing to have these rather amazing conversations with folks he has never met. And I thank him for those public thoughts, even when I don't agree with him. Forgive me for interrupting.
Yes, ditto, Clint. I would also ask: In what respects has Clintoon "certainly learned his lesson"?
Perhaps the older more moderate "Clint" will forgive the rasher version. Perhaps too sometimes our older leaders will indulge us younger fools in a bit of that wild wooing of the world represented in the first book that the Ashbrook Center ever assigned me.
Were I given the ability to revise my comments, the "what exactly did it for you Peter" would be more wisely removed. It is as you point out too personal and passioned for a public discussion.
So my apologies to Peter L. A public discussion ought to include a public defense of the good things of the Clinton Presidency rather than a mere assertion. That is what I ask for.
While the some think Hillary is favorable to Barack, I also wonder whether in part Barack would break or at least reframe the entitlement mentality. Sure he is for government helping everyone but I heard him say to "We'll give you money for college, but you have to do something to! Volunteer at a homeless shelter, a veterans home, a soup kitchen. We'll help you, you'll help us, and we'll all move forward together." Not good, but not bad either; it is at least a new take on the old entitlements that I doubt (Bill or Hillary) Clinton is willing to lead.
Don't worry Clint (the "younger" maybe). Both Julie and Peter don't make a convincing case at all. Fact is, the coming Obama presidency will do two things:
1) First, it will break the Clinton/Bush stagnation. This is much worse than the perceived (and as you pointed out baseless) "competency" that these aristocrats allegedly have - and I am one that tends toward aristocracy.
2) Obama's real and honest liberalism will be a huge plus for the country in two ways. First, it will remind the voters what real liberalism is, and they can then decide if that is what they really want for the next 20 years or so. Second, what little true "conservative" sway is left in the GOP, will have to come out. Then all these legions of GOP cheerleaders can claim in truth (instead of the wishful thinking that pervades now) that the GOP is their vehicle, or they can start the hard work of creating another party.
I for one am looking forward to it. If it was not against simple decency, I would vote for Obama if I could. I would recommend to my fellow secularist "conservatives" that they do the same if they are not convicted by the holocaust of the unborn. The coming Obama presidency, and liberal take over of the house and senate, does have a plus side...
"No Left Turns" is full of posts on behalf of Obama. Nice.
As a life long Republican, I have been intrigued by Obama. What he said at the Selma March about parents (particularly men) standing up and taking charge of their lives and their families (paraphrasing here...) inspired me. My students are also inspired by this person--normally elections don't excite students much--they see it as remote from their everyday activities. But this one is different. I don't know yet if I will vote for him in the fall, but his energy and enthusiasm has caused both my husband and myself to sit up and take notice (even to buy his book--which is still sitting on my "to read" list)
"No Left Turns" is full of posts on behalf of Obama. Nice.
I know, it would be easier to cheer the home team like a sports fan. However, politics is both more important and more complex than "home vs. visitors"...
My comments were not intended to support Obama (except as over Clinton). My original comment was a question about why NLT seems to give the Clintons such a pass. There are battles to be fought, and we can't just all hold hands and say "yes we can." I accuse the secular and academic conservative (wide overlap) of playing paddy-cake with the Clintons. They would rather make deals and triangulate eith the Clintons than really let more common conservatives like Huckabee, or Hunter, or Shadegg, or Pence, take the reigns.
It is still completely undiscussed what in any way Bill's Presidency did for any conservative ideals. I expect that claim is undefensible unless one counts the fact that it made a good foil for conservatives.
Peter Lawler: I am torn. I hear what you are saying about Obama being a "two touchdown favorite" over McCain and I concede that--for the moment--this certainly seems to be the case. But I keep thinking . . . "It's too early . . ." and then I look at the nature of his support. It's all so--you will pardon me, please (!)--orgasmic. How long can it last? I begin to see a lot of potential for it to slip away. This is going to be a very difficult race to call, in my view. We're coming out of years of near 50/50 division. I don't see anything on the horizon poised to break that. I used to think Obama "might could" as they say down South. But now I think that it will be a squeaker no matter what.
8: Soccer Mom, the fact that Obama inspires ignorant, propagandized kids is no argument that he would be a good, or acceptable, president. Nor is the fact that he can make people "sit up and take notice."
These aren't ignorant propagandized kids...they have been diligently studying all of the candidates more than most adults do since the start of this election season in January. I take offense that you think that kids are just ignorant because they are interested in a candidate that is not of your choosing. These kids who are interested in him are not dumb and they should not be counted as dumb...I have taught them to make a balanced informed decision without pushing my own Republican views on them (which is more than I can say for most adults)and most of them (about 60%) seem to favor Obama. That does not make them ignorant...that makes them educated.
The fact that Obama does appeal to others should make Republicans sit up and take notice of what he is doing and why it is working. I'm not saying that he would make a good President--I haven't made my choice yet--but I think he deserves to be looked at fairly and impartially. I think all adults should look at someone for what they have to offer and less for what political party they belong too.
The fact that Obama does appeal to others should make Republicans sit up and take notice
My local drive home libertarian talk show host (who incorrectly identifies himself as "conservative" of course) was pining for Newt Gingrich to run yesterday!
To many Republicans are very confused about the GOP failure of 94-06. In fact, most are in outright denial.
Such folks are going to have a VERY difficult time understanding Obama...
Soccer Mom, please let us know when you've played for your bright, diligent students the clip of "Rev." Jeremiah Wright's sermon that was on Hannity's radio show today. All right?
I don't deny that you're a competent, diligent teacher. I do deny that a few exercises in your classroom, or even research done at your behest, is enough to overcome the weight of the cultural elites, exerted over these kids' lifetimes in multiple ways. I'd say they're somewhat less ignorant and propagandized than most kids, perhaps thanks to you. That still isn't good enough. The teacher doesn't exist who can reverse this deformation in a year, except perhaps with two or three very special students. Without having met them, I guarantee that you do not have a classroom of kids who know as much as they ought to about what is at stake in the 2008 election.
9 -- Christopher, you are guilty of pseudo-intellectualizing. There is, in fact, more in common between politics and sports than you realize. Politics is a game with, so to speak, "home and visitors," which, unlike football or basketball, actually matters enormously. And the "visitors" are not just non-homies, but present real threats to the values of our team. If a blog is titled "No Left Turns," yes, it damned well is identifying with a team. There can be a great deal of fruitful discussion about how to further that team's interests, who is and isn't on the team, etc. If you want nonpartisanship, go somewhere else. If you want to discuss how the team can win the game, stay here. If you want to do now the one, now the other, split your time between the two. Yes, NLT should be more temperate and open to non-conservative comment than a more activist site like Free Republic. No, it should not welcome gushing tributes to a leftist demagogue like Barack Obama. If it were up to me, I'd refuse to run them.
If you want nonpartisanship, go somewhere else
LOL. Mr. Fisk, perhaps you should read what I said again - you missed the point...