Katie sent me a nice opinion piece from the New York Times on the self-psychoanalysis of John Edwards.
She uses some fun words! I had to look up "solipsism" and "manqué". I was quite certain I knew the first word, but then realized I was thinking of "solecism" (which, to my credit, works fine in context, but still does not prevent me from feeling like a solipsistic linguist manqué).
I'm so glad the populist politics of John Edwards are out of the mix in the power structure of the Democratic Party. More power to the free-trade (I hope) Democrats such as Obama and Clinton! (Both appear to be reliable free-traders, though it is unsettling to have to ignore everything they said during the primaries.)
She uses some fun words! I had to look up "solipsism" and "manqué". I was quite certain I knew the first word, but then realized I was thinking of "solecism" (which, to my credit, works fine in context, but still does not prevent me from feeling like a solipsistic linguist manqué).
I'm so glad the populist politics of John Edwards are out of the mix in the power structure of the Democratic Party. More power to the free-trade (I hope) Democrats such as Obama and Clinton! (Both appear to be reliable free-traders, though it is unsettling to have to ignore everything they said during the primaries.)
I actually found John Edwards' explanation to be much more genuine than Clinton's bogus rending of garments and pleas for forgiveness. Clinton had an affair for the same reason Edwards did: he wanted to, and he figured he was important enough to get away with it. I appreciated Edwards' honesty in admitting that this was at the base of it.
ReplyDeleteAnd frankly I'm tired of hearing about politicians' affairs. I don't care, not one tiny bit, unless they're one of those sanctimonious (usually Republican) politicians who are always going on about "family values." Only then do I think their affairs deserve any public mention.
I don't care whether politicians have affairs or not either, but to say it is more important for Republicans than Democrats, because Republicans go on about family values is unfair. Dems may not go on about family values, but they do their best to project them (e.g., Obama showing off his family, that sort of thing). I'd only hold Dems to a different standard if they said they couldn't care less about their families.
ReplyDeleteAnd since when is Obama a free trade supporter? The Clintons are, but not the messiah.
It is true that Obama does not have great free trade credentials, but he has made lots of comforting noises since the primary madness forced him to drive so far to the left. His economic team includes Michael Froman (who drove many of Bill Clinton's pro-business economic policies) and Austan Goolsbee (a centrist economist with great credentials from the University of Chicago Business School).
ReplyDeleteObama does want to raise the top income tax bracket from 35% back to 39.5%, though, and he'll also raise capital gains taxes from 15% to between 20% and 28%. That's not anti-business necessarily, but it is "anti-trickle down," perhaps. And he'll be using the extra money raised to institute universal health care, which I think we need. McCain, on the other hand, would cut the top corporate tax rate from 35% to 25%, which would also be a good thing, as the 35% rate is relatively high by international standards. (As the world economy becomes more and more diverse, companies have more options on where to go. We want to encourage them to set up business here in the US.)