I recently read your article on Barack Obama, entitled "Will We Never Learn?", and although I found it well written I have some comments to make. My main problem with this article is that you took all of the clever bipartisanship of your Hillary endorsement and took an about face on it. What this does is give the article a frustrated attack-campaign feel to someone who has read that endorsement, besides furthering a rift in the Democratic Party which would directly contradict Hillary's ideal for "Democratic Unity." The fact is, somebody I would like to have a beer with is drastically different from somebody who inspires me, and comparing Obama to Bush from the begining, although a clever move on the offensive, is going to make alot of people dismiss the article immediately. Martin Luther King Jr. was inspiring, but I would have rather had a beer with LBJ. Bill Clinton encompassed both feelings. To inspire, by definition, means to fill somebody with the urge or ability to do or feel something, or to create a feeling, especially a positive one, in a person. To make somebody proud, and feel an urge to do something special is drastically different than to make that same person want to get drunk with you. Now you are absolutely right about Obama suporters and their lack of understanding of what Obama's change may entail, and that is a point that you do make very well. However, one could also bring up the old Ghandi quote, "I like your Christ, I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your Christ." and modify it, in response to that: "I like your Obama, I do not like your Obamans. Your Obamans are so unlike your Obama." Obama is no Christ (unless you consider the questions surrounding how real he is), but what I mean to point out is that hitting Obama supporters is not necessarily going to do anything but polarize the party. Of course, you follow it up by switching your words to target Obama, which is a very clever use of rhetoric. My other problem with this article, though, is that those attacks seem to take on many of the "talking points" you comdemn. "Obama has no plan for bringing out change": agreed, but it would help the article to present an example, such as "How will he fund the $150 billion dollars he wants to invest in alternaive fuels?" or "How will he fund his pay raises to teachers?" (The second he would actually do by cutting funding to NASA, a group that actually does alot for alternative fuel research) "Obama throws low blows.": Unless somebody is as up on the news as you, this is something that requires an example. Perhaps you could quote Obama in one of his attacks, and then refute it with fact. Because you are as intelligent and learned as you are, I expect you to not just say things, but prove them. The same goes for the last 3 campaign related articles you have sent me: the first, sent after the
"crying" incident, said in short, "Hillary has now shown her humanity, look how likeable she can really be, she deserves your vote, also, don't deny America a woman president." The second, which was the endorsement, said, "Hillary is better eqquipped to lead America, and she has a plan." This may be true, except that you did not give examples of her plan, or how she would do this, falling in line with the "Obamans" described in this article. Finally, this article said "Obama is full of false hope and empty promises, don't vote for him just because he is likeable." which may also be true, but there are few examples to prove this. Simply from a writer's point of view, your points would be better taken if they had more substance, so that they may juxtapose Obama's alleged no substance. Also, an endorsement from Oprah is not Obama's fault, and should not be a reason to pull one's support from a candidate. Basically, I think your points in this article and those other ones are solid, even good, but as far as the writing goes, there is some weak rhetoric here and there. Like I said, I would not even bring it up if I did not know how smart and well learned you are, but judging by other things you have written, and even by your articles on Mexican politics, (remember how you said the same things about AMLO, but proved it?) I think you could change solid points to good and even great ones. |
