This is the third in a four part series — my reaction to each of the opinion pieces the candidates write for The DP and finally my reaction to The DP’s endorsement. I write purely critiquing each candidate’s piece, and not from my own political point of view.
A strong editorial from the Senator, which was more inclusive of policy than I had expected. This is a very big plus since it addresses the issue of Senator Obama being perceived by some as “policy-lite.”
The fight against Senator McCain has already started. The opponents are now “Bush-McCain Republicans.” I’m not sure the two can be quite roped together (apart from their position on the war), but it certainly is the way to beat McCain.
The last thing I think most voters want is another Bush presidency. The phrase has to be coined early so it becomes part of normal political language by the time of the general election.
The Senator says a lot of great things.
He talks of whipping the Congress back into shape and curbing the power of lobbyists. I’d like to point out that this is so much easier said than done, but it is still a valid and extremely admirable view to take and hold. If you are going to be the candidate for change, you better put your money where your mouth is — or not, I guess, when it comes to lobbyists.
He talks about tax breaks for the working class and devotes a large part of a paragraph to it. This is also very appealing to a lot of Pennsylvanian voters, but I’m not sure how much it will resonate with his audience in The DP.
Senator Obama also promised a $4000 tax credit for college students, as long as the students in question commit to doing public or national service. I like how honest he is about it — very bold. I shall speak about whether I agree with it some other time. I wonder if college students would balk at the fact any help ties them to something they just may not want to do, or gratefully accept it. I’m guessing the latter for the majority, but I’m sure there will still be plenty of the former.
Something I was slightly confused by was the following,
“Because the American people are ready to move past the division and distraction in Washington; we are ready to rally behind a common purpose, a higher purpose.”
Okay, firstly — total misuse of the semi-colon there. Editor of the Harvard Law Review huh?
Second, because of said misuse of semi-colon, exactly what is the higher purpose we are talking about? Kicking the collective asses of Congress? Change? Spiritual enlightenment? The sentence lacks a certain sense of direction — it sounds great, but doesn’t actually mean anything.
I also hate empty clauses like the one that follows,
“Here, in a state that stands for what’s possible in America, we can choose to take this country in a new direction.”
What the hell is that about? I don’t wish to offend Pennsylvanians, and I’ve only ever gone as far as the nearest part of the Poconos to Philadelphia, but why the hell is this a state that shows us what’s possible in America? Is it Philadelphia’s corrupt politics and economic stagnation? Is it the Amish or the even bigger state of stagnation in Pittsburgh?
It’s a platitude to make everyone feel good about themselves without saying anything. If he gave reasons, whatever they may be, at least that would honour the statement. It irritates me immensely. I’m not saying the Senator is the only one to do it — but if you are trying to be different, and you say that you are different, don’t do the same crap as everyone else.
All in all, the article is a solid reaffirmation of what we have seen as the Obama take on the world. For that consistency of message, I applaud him.
Tags: Barack Obama
An RSS feed of The Spin is available
April 17th, 2008 at 3:31 pm
“What the hell is that about? I don?t wish to offend Pennsylvanians, and I?ve only ever gone as far as the nearest part of the Poconos to Philadelphia, but why the hell is this a state that shows us what?s possible in America? Is it Philadelphia?s corrupt politics and economic stagnation? Is it the Amish or the even bigger state of stagnation in Pittsburgh?”
I believe that what Senator Obama is talking about is Pennsylvania’s history. Y’know, the one that includes the drafting of the US Constitution and all.
Aaaaaaand it’s pretty weak to attack the guy on grammar usage. Just saying.
April 17th, 2008 at 3:33 pm
“I also hate empty clauses like the one that follows,
‘Here, in a state that stands for what’s possible in America, we can choose to take this country in a new direction.’
What the hell is that about? I don?t wish to offend Pennsylvanians, and Iive only ever gone as far as the nearest part of the Poconos to Philadelphia, but why the hell is this a state that shows us what’s possible in America? Is it Philadelphia’s corrupt politics and economic stagnation? Is it the Amish or the even bigger state of stagnation in Pittsburgh?”
I believe that what Senator Obama is talking about is Pennsylvania’s history. Y’know, the one that includes the drafting and signing of the US Constitution, and all that jazz.
Aaaaaaand it’s pretty weak to attack the guy on grammar usage. Just saying.
April 17th, 2008 at 6:54 pm
-”What the hell is that about? I don’t wish to offend Pennsylvanians, and Iive only ever gone as far as the nearest part of the Poconos to Philadelphia, but why the hell is this a state that shows us what’s possible in America? Is it Philadelphia’s corrupt politics and economic stagnation? Is it the Amish or the even bigger state of stagnation in Pittsburgh?”
I completely agree with Eric on this one. This is meaninigless rhetoric, pure and simple. Other than a quick reference to Pennsylvania being “a birthplace of our union,” this article could have been written to anyone almost anywhere and been just as (ir)relevant.
That Obama throws in dubious statements like “Pennsylvania knows we need less tough talk…” just reinforces the patronizing and superficial tone of the whole article.
April 18th, 2008 at 12:00 am
There are arguments over the use of the semi-colon. As writers move to communicating via the net, stuck-in-the-mud rules of grammer are being trumped by non-proof read missives that communicate. In fact in the early days of the Web, many butchered rules to show cleverness.
I’m writing this from the Bay Area. Out here, many of us consider UPenn to be a fall-back position. Sort of a curious, atavistic institution that turns out grinds.
It must be really, really boring to dwell on a ; when a new idea or clever inversion might give some hope that Penn can contribute to our 21st Century.