Obama the politician
Regardless of the ridiculous controversy over the cover, this New Yorker article on Obama is worth reading.
It’s not flattering, but it’s by no means a negative article. The man is smart and he figured out how to work Chicago’s political landscape and propel himself into the U.S. Senate. He learned from mistakes and made it to the top. A bit ruthlessly, maybe, but politics isn’t for timid folks like myself. The story also does a good job showing just how absurd the allegations that he’s some kind of left wing radical are, as well.
It does cut against his idealistic message of hope change a little, though. He used Chicago’s political machine when he needed it, he didn’t try to change it. He didn’t push sweeping changes at any level. I’m tempted to say that’s really what the controversy over the cover is for - to redirect attention from this article - but it doesn’t seem like it’s worth the trouble.
UPDATE: Jesus, I should read these more carefully before I post them.
Now, I admit I haven’t paid attention to every press release from his campaign, so I don’t know if they’ve given specifics on what we’re supposed to be “hoping” for and what this “change” would entail. But I’ve always assumed he uses those buzz words more in relations to the underlying cultural/societal implications of electing a young, funny, hip, black guy with an Arab name. I think they refer, in an unspoken and possibly even unconscious way, to the dawn of a new era in race relations without alienating (too much) people who aren’t 100% comfortable with that. My mom, the Hillary fan, keeps whining that he’s not going to suddenly get every liberal piece of legislation passed, but I don’t think that’s ever been what the Obama campaign has meant.
*re-laaaa-shuns*
Uh, yeah, meant “in relation to”.
That’s underlying everything, but they’re more explicitly appealing to those who are dissatisfied with politics as usual - the corruption and partisan gridlock. This kind of thing, from his “Blueprint for Change” pamphlet:
It’s very idealistic, which is not how that article depicts Obama.
It’s a good article - no agenda that I could discern. Lizza just laid it out. I was especially curious about his quote about Obama’s Iraq stance, to the effect that at that time in that place Obama could not possibly have supported the war.
Did you read Surfing the Universe” by Benjamin Wallace-Wells in the same issue? It’s a gripper.