An anonymous reader responds to a previous post I wrote emphasizing my strategic and ideological disagreements with the Obama campaign:
But I digress. First off, I hope I'm not coming across as ugly or mean towards Barack Obama. I like Senator Obama. I liked his keynote speech at the Democratic National Convention. I understand and respect his appeal. Joe Biden was my initial choice for President. After that fizzled out, I was genuinely torn between Clinton and Obama for a while. That I ultimately sided with Clinton is a choice I prefer to be honest about. This is a blog, after all!
And it goes without saying that if Obama is nominated, I'll support our candidate happily, and be waving Obama '08 signs alongside everybody else all summer. The reason I blog about Hillary and Obama so much is because we need to have a conversation about party vision and strategic choices before we choose a nominee. I offer myself as evidence of the serious internal battle for the future of the Democratic Party. If I can't convince everybody (anybody?) of the merits of Clintonism, I still hope people take our internal battle seriously. The differences between our two leading candidates have not been this clear-cut or extreme since 1968.
In another response, the aforementioned anonymous blogger asks "do you ever write anything that doesn't bash obama and support clinton?" Of course I do, even though I wouldn't call my prose "bashing." I wrote a post earlier last week defending Barack Obama against Christopher Hitchens' recent op-ed piece -- Hitchens wrote the ugliest and most bigoted op-ed of this campaign season, and I don't like seeing our candidates slandered. And I should note that Ms. Clinton's recent comments about Martin Luther King, Jr. and Lyndon Johnson were among the stupidest I've ever heard by a leading contender. Not enough to lose my vote, but shallow and brainless nonetheless.
But if the anonymous blogger had asked if I ever write anything that minimizes or apologizes for Democrats' heated internal debate, my response would have been that I hope not. We cannot bury the ideological disagreements we're having. We should have them, loudly and vigorously. Feelings will get hurt. And there will be political casualties, both personal and ideological. But we might be a more thoughtful party at the end, and the discourse will make us stronger.
more obama bashing from eric schmidt...how typical.Yikes! "Obama bashing" is a strong term. I prefer "thoughtful and polemical exploration of the differences between Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama, with strong emphasis on why our party needs to be honest about its internal struggles."
But I digress. First off, I hope I'm not coming across as ugly or mean towards Barack Obama. I like Senator Obama. I liked his keynote speech at the Democratic National Convention. I understand and respect his appeal. Joe Biden was my initial choice for President. After that fizzled out, I was genuinely torn between Clinton and Obama for a while. That I ultimately sided with Clinton is a choice I prefer to be honest about. This is a blog, after all!
And it goes without saying that if Obama is nominated, I'll support our candidate happily, and be waving Obama '08 signs alongside everybody else all summer. The reason I blog about Hillary and Obama so much is because we need to have a conversation about party vision and strategic choices before we choose a nominee. I offer myself as evidence of the serious internal battle for the future of the Democratic Party. If I can't convince everybody (anybody?) of the merits of Clintonism, I still hope people take our internal battle seriously. The differences between our two leading candidates have not been this clear-cut or extreme since 1968.
In another response, the aforementioned anonymous blogger asks "do you ever write anything that doesn't bash obama and support clinton?" Of course I do, even though I wouldn't call my prose "bashing." I wrote a post earlier last week defending Barack Obama against Christopher Hitchens' recent op-ed piece -- Hitchens wrote the ugliest and most bigoted op-ed of this campaign season, and I don't like seeing our candidates slandered. And I should note that Ms. Clinton's recent comments about Martin Luther King, Jr. and Lyndon Johnson were among the stupidest I've ever heard by a leading contender. Not enough to lose my vote, but shallow and brainless nonetheless.
But if the anonymous blogger had asked if I ever write anything that minimizes or apologizes for Democrats' heated internal debate, my response would have been that I hope not. We cannot bury the ideological disagreements we're having. We should have them, loudly and vigorously. Feelings will get hurt. And there will be political casualties, both personal and ideological. But we might be a more thoughtful party at the end, and the discourse will make us stronger.
3 Comments:
I agree with you Eric. Obviously opinions are a prominent feature of a blog, and facilitate dialogue. But we also need to make sure to strike a balance, to make sure that all Democrats feel welcome. As long as the criticism is honest people will be interested in responding with their own opinions, which would be ideal.
amen. more cdm bloggers!!!
Obama's campaign on campus has no right to call the media bias in way, shape, or form. In my view, this blog actually leans more Obama with the coverage than Clinton. Not like the distinctions matter.
Also, it's impossible to quantify the balance, so leave it up to the "market of ideas" if you will, to settle how much coverage they're getting. SFO has enough volunteers to send one or two over here to blog. If Eric has some anti-Obama things to say, then it seems pretty fair game.
Post a Comment
<< Home