on halloween and such

Not a single kiddie stopped by last night.

Apparently they don't think the loot's going to be so good in the apartment complexes and instead go to mooch off the richies. Kommie Kids.* And I was so excited to frighten the parents with my John Mark Karr costume.


And now a question. Obama recently received an endorsement from a former Reagan chief of staff, in addition to earlier endorsements by Colin Powell, Scott McClellan, and other lesser known conservatives. He has also received support from Bill Ayers and Michael Moore,** two people who, well, come from a different end of the spectrum. Why?

I read an article in Time talking about Obama's ability to effectively articulate both sides of an argument, which I can certainly believe after having watched his race speech. The article quoted a law school professor of Obama's who referred to a time in class where Obama articulated both sides of an argument so well that everyone in the class left thinking Obama supported their own view. Does that have anything to do with it? Or are people simply so tired of the present state of things that they are willing to give up some things in order to have a president with other qualities and beliefs that they believe are more important? Or has Obama been broad enough in public speeches/interviews/debates that people don't think they're really compromising that much at all? Smart people on both sides are endorsing him, so I find that third answer a little hard to believe. What do ya think?

* Yes, that would be a good clothing line for hipster children, and no, you can't take the idea.

** I'm not implying Michael Moore has ever engaged in domestic terrorism--I'm just saying he and Bill Ayers are much closer on the political spectrum than the others I listed. I'm also not necessarily saying Bill Ayers's bombings constituted terrorism, since I think the word terrorism is used much too loosely by both sides and should only be applied to attacks primarily targeting civilians and having the intent to affect governmental policies through pressure from a "terrorized" populace. I don't know enough about Ayers' actions, so I'm not going to say whether his bombings were technically terrorism. Any way, you shouldn't be reading this footnote--the point of the post is in the main body above. Go. Leave!


At 12:01 PM, Blogger c said...

I'll bite. I do think his earning those varied endorsements is an issue of the qualities he has rather than his views. I read a similar article discussing how he was elected to the Harvard Law Review (unanimously, I want to say) because he so clearly articulated the conservatives' side(s) of the argument as he made his case. As I recall, it wasn't that people thought he was on both their sides; it was that they all thought he had listened to and considered all the ideas presented. (And I suspect it doesn't hurt that he is, well, rather eloquent.) I think that's different from widely pandering to all sides.

Whether or not that is a good reason for choosing a president is, I suppose, for another discussion.

At 5:42 PM, Blogger T.M. said...

I've written several draft responses and erased them all since I'm still not sure how much political opinion my current job allows me to express. Political bumper sticker = bad, but beyond that I don't know. And yes, a more intelligent person would have avoided this problem all together by not writing the current post. But I never claimed to be all that bright.


Post a Comment

<< Home