The Audacity of Kristol

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/17/opinion/17kristol.html?scp=5&sq=obama&st=nyt

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/24/opinion/24kristol.html?scp=3&sq=op-ed+obama+prejudice&st=nyt

Directly on the heels of his previous article published the previous Monday, William Kristol does an amazing job of eating his partially fictional, critical words in his most recent article published Monday March 24. Barring the outright false claim made as a centerpiece for his previous weeks’ article, there was a noticeable shift of attack strategy from picking on Obama’s political abandonment of his church and reverend (which proved to be the exact opposite of how Obama reacted given his familial embrace of his reverend in his March 18 speech) to casting Obama as the time old and ever safe stereotype of the crafty politician. A clever trick that feeds upon the institutionalized public fear of politics in general and a method that could make any moral, well-intentioned politician look like a crafty, ambitious manipulator.

Kristol continues this assault upon Obama’s character and in doing so daringly brings up the speech delivered by Obama [which he must recognize rendered his previous week’s article to be essentially irrelevant]. He quotes (with a personal interjection included) Obama’s intention to “to lead the American people in a great and unprecedented [if he did say so himself] conversation about race.” This he develops into a case in which he gives two examples of previous presidents that had addressed racial issues, citing Bill Clinton as having tried to start the same discussions during his term to no avail. Well, no offense to our “First Black President” as Bill was affectionately nicknamed, but nothing beats the real thing, and in the case of a racial discussion who better than an authentic African-American to finally get the job done.

In addition the statement quoted from Daniel Patrick Moynihan’s infamous memo to Nixon was taken completely out of context. It was originally meant to reflect his displeasure with the administration’s overly aggressive actions. Kristol conversely tries to use it as a request for complete neglect. It was meant to stave off excessive action by the administration that was fueling radical African-American movements at the time, and last time I checked Obama’s request for a racial discussion came as a result of disturbing radical statements, not the other way around. I see no fire being fed here; only one being extinguished.

Sample Entry

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/26/opinion/26tue4.html?ex=1361768400&en=2c9530939976660f&ei=5124&partner=permalink&exprod=permalink

Regarding Randolph's essay, I think she is missing the point. In elections, stuff happens. Sure, Nader may be a spoiler, and, yes, his message is tired and rather one note, but he is an inevitable part of the political process, just as much as the albatross of Rev. Wright around Obama's neck; Hillary, the ghost of Monica Lewinsky, and cigars of terms past; or John McCain's "I hate you . . . no wait, come back, I really do love you" relationship with the Christian conservatives.

If you dig enough dirt and hire enough "consultants" to trump up scandals against your opponent, you can change an election. Maybe a candidate will do themselves in by sleeping with prostitutes, or calling someone a "macaca," or playing footsy underneath a bathroom stall in a Minneapolis airport. Maybe a man who was once an admirable advocate for the average American consumer, but has since become an irritation on par with a mosquito bite, will run again and again and again. In politics, there are no givens. Why else have the pundits been scratching their heads since the primaries began?

In this election, there will be bumps and bruised egos along the way. Illegitimate love children, backroom alpaca purchases, and secret trades of Immodium stock may surface before it's all said and done. Paris Hilton may decide to run. The Christian conservatives may decide they really don't like McCain after all and secede from the Union. It's America. A nation that used to be run by native peoples, and the English, and the French, and the Spanish. A nation that moved westward and stopped a winter to eat other other along the way. A nation that was almost rended in two by slavery. A nation that survived the Cold War and the Aniston-Pitt divorce. We can deal with a third-party candidate shaking things up . . . again. We can deal with change. We thrive on it.

Bring it on, Ralph Nader!