(no subject)

[lollardfish]

minnehaha B. pointed this article out to me. Clinton or Obama - Manager or Visionary. I think it does a really balanced job in laying out the alternatives with which we are faced. I'm choosing visionary, but I can't fault the choice in manager, and I'd be happy to have either.

Comments

[zinzinzinnia.livejournal.com]

To be perfectly honest, I think a lot of so-called "liberal"* people in politics end up being more conservative than they appear, because the logistics of politicking are a lot harder to navigate and influence than the ideals they're trying to uphold.

People can genuinely want change; it doesn't mean they will be able to effect it.

(* I say so-called "liberal" not because I don't believe they have liberal values, but because I dislike the label, what it's come to represent in American culture, and how it misinterprets the real meaning of liberal)

[lollardfish.livejournal.com]

Progressive is the new liberal.

[zantony.livejournal.com]

I had taken to using progressive, but this post by Matthew Yglesias and this article by Eric Alterman have me reconsidering it. News outlets will continue to use liberal. Conservatives have a lot invested in their smear campaign against the word, so they'll keep using it as a weapon. The trick is to make it an ineffective weapon. I think that can only be done by owning the word, stating proudly and clearly the core values of liberalism (which are closer to what most people believe than I think they realize). It took a deliberate long-term campaign for the conservatives to tarnish the term. It'll take just as much care and effort to shine it up again. But it can and should be done.

[lollardfish.livejournal.com]

I'd love to see it happen. My cynicism says that it won't.

logistics of politicking.....

[mizzlaurajean.livejournal.com]

That's true and something I think about a lot.