Andrew Sullivan, Atlantic (1/2008): "Think of it as the most effective potential re-brandingSo between, Walkling, Taibbi, and Sullivan. I think I've moved. As everyone knows, I've been a somewhat stanch Hillary supporter (as opposed to believer). Because I was working with the dual premises of A) She could win and, B) It would infuriate the conservatives. The latter point is in direct opposition with my 2008 New Year's resolution.
of the United States since Reagan."
Rich Walkling, Middlespace Live (3/2007): "He's the new fucking Ronald Reagan for the 21st Century."
Matt Taibbi, Rolling Stone (12/2007): "Like Kennedy or Reagan or even Bill Clinton, Obama is a politician whose best chance for success has always been on the level of myth and hero worship"
Maybe it is true that Clinton would be the obvious person to take us from point A to point B. But, why should we go to point B, anyhow? That's not thinking big. Hillary is pretty much the Blue Devils; big, strong, powerful, and in your face. I have little problems with this.
But why not start asking, "What does point K look like?" Maybe we should think, "Let's plan for point P for a change." That is, why go with the obvious qualifications -- the devil we know -- when we can flip the fucking paradigm?
Barack Obama (SCV) may just be the first (and perhaps only) tripgrass presidential candidate (seriously, it makes sense). Maybe this is a moment. Maybe we shouldn't think how someone will lead or what someone will actually do but what someone represents; to the world and to ourselves.
Maybe what has bothered me about the Reagan thing is association. I've always hated Ronald Reagan and his paradigm. But I can get over that, I suppose. I get it, it was a shift.
So from one mulatto to another.... Senator, you have the blessing of the Leisureland. I may change my mind later, but for now, I've packed my tent and have moved the circus.
[Ed. note: Nice 03.07 call, RW]
Posts
