The Unemotional As Opposed To The Cult Case For Obama

Andrew Sullivan is on a roll today. The previous post contains a portion from one of his posts in response to a discussion of health care debates, but I found it a better overall commentary on the placement of Obama on the left/right political spectrum. In another post today Sullivan has a good response to a topic I addressed yesterday–the descriptions of Obama supporters as cultists. Sullivan writes:

But the strongest case for Obama is not emotional; it is as coolly rational as he is. I tried to express it in my “Goodbye To All That” essay. On the most critical issues we face – Iraq, the war against Jihadism, healthcare, and the economy – he makes more sense as a president than Clinton. And when you watch the knee-jerk opposition to him, I think it is actually more emotional and less rational than the support for him. Fear is more emotional than hope.

And defending Clinton on the grounds of “experience” and “substance” is a fairy tale on both counts, if you pardon the expression. Her legislative experience is one term longer than Obama’s (and that’s if you don’t count Obama’s state legislative record), is notable mainly for its uninspired diligence in constituency work, and on the most important issue of the day, Iraq, simply wrong. Her main executive branch experience was destroying a historic opportunity for healthcare reform through arrogance, secrecy and over-reach. Her “substance” claim is just as phony. There is no detail in her policy apparatus that isn’t matched by Obama’s.

Be Sociable, Share!

Leave a comment