 |
|
|
||
Visit our sponsorsFill up our coffee fundBlogAdsMost Emailed
Visit our sponsorsUpcoming eventsWho's onlineThere are currently 1 user and 1369 guests online.
Online users |
Get our Digestifs du jourNibble daily on our brainy goodness with our daily syndication digest. You'll receive an email with a list and links to the previous day's posts.
culturekitchensThe Publisher Daily servings of political dissent Grassroots News and Feminist Bloggers A new kind of vouyerism Art + Code + Philosophy Got any dirt, tips, leads or money for us? Then drop us a line or two at editors [at] culturekitchen [dot] com or use our general contact form to reach everybody in the editorial team ASAP. Hot Topics
Member's articles and stories
Recent reviews
| |
Words to live byObama sketched out a different theory of social change than the one Clinton had implied earlier in the evening. Instead of relying on a president who fights for those who feel invisible, Obama, in the climactic passage of his speech, described how change bubbles from the bottom-up: “And because that somebody stood up, a few more stood up. And then a few thousand stood up. And then a few million stood up. And standing up, with courage and clear purpose, they somehow managed to change the world!†For people raised on Jane Jacobs, who emphasized how a spontaneous dynamic order could emerge from thousands of individual decisions, this is a persuasive way of seeing the world. For young people who have grown up on Facebook, YouTube, open-source software and an array of decentralized networks, this is a compelling theory of how change happens. Clinton had sounded like a traditional executive, as someone who gathers the experts, forges a policy, fights the opposition, bears the burdens of power, negotiates the deal and, in crisis, makes the decision at 3 o’clock in the morning. But Obama sounded like a cross between a social activist and a flannel-shirted software C.E.O. — as a nonhierarchical, collaborative leader who can inspire autonomous individuals to cooperate for the sake of common concerns. Clinton had sounded like Old Politics, but Obama created a vision of New Politics. And the past several months have revolved around the choice he framed there that night. Some people are enthralled by the New Politics, and we see their vapors every day. Others think it is a mirage and a delusion. There’s only one politics, and, tragically, it’s the old kind, filled with conflict and bad choices. Instant CongressSubscribe Buttons                    | ||
Winning isn't everything
The only thing will be how they can come into a can of worms when the terror brigade leaves office. Your pairings seem perceptive. I agree that Edwards and Richardson would be strong. But it breaks the mold of having the VP candidate as hatchet man. And it is possible that Obama could play that role for Edwards. Edwards' big drawback is his territorial roots. He will undoubtedly be mindful of engaging the great Midwest blah. And I'm sure he'll understand that better after Iowa. He's betting on a landslide there. As for Clinton/Clark, there is a same old same old aspect. Do you really think the politics of the DLC will carry that much weight with local Democratic organizations? I see these two as Clinton/Gore rewarmed. At any rate, there are more important things to finish before the convention, or even the primaries. All candidates, left and right, are going to have to delineate their true leanings. In my view the MSM are not controlling the odds. Disengagement in Iraq and local economic matters are beginning to play a bigger role.