I may not agree with him, but he's a darned good wordsmith

[viktor_haag]

On the advice of Mr Tony, I have started to follow Charles Krauthammer's articles at the Washington Post. You should, too. While I may not agree with his point of view or his politics, Krauthammer's voice is very well crafted indeed.

In his latest, as he explains how Clinton has managed to get off the matt and take it to Obama, Krauthammer makes a quiet case for why USAmericans should maybe not be so darned quick to embrace the new guy. I love this quote:

The Obama campaign has sent journalists eight pages of examples of his reaching across the aisle in the Senate. I am not the only one to note, however, that these are small-bore items of almost no controversy ... [b]ipartisan support for apple pie is hardly a profile in courage.

Ouch.

edit: In related news, it appears that cracks continue to appear in the camp of Mr Shiny Happy. Seriously, Samantha; what the heck were you thinking? Whether you have a case, or not, plainly calling your boss' rival "a monster" is only going to lead to one thing: damage for your boss in the public eye, and a resignation for your ownself. I mean, at least have the decency to call her out on the shaky points of her record and her campaign (of which, no doubt, there have been a few)...

Comments

[doc-mystery.livejournal.com]

Krauthammer is pretty R wing, and this thread runs through many of his otherwise well written arguments. He's a US Medical Board trained Neurologist and is very bright, but I stopped following his coloumn after his ongoing arguments in favour of the war in Iraq despite all the evidence to the contrary.

It was also about this time that the Washington Post was putting up some pretty obnoxious hoops to jump through to read his, and others, articles and columns.

::B::

[viktor-haag.livejournal.com]

I agree about your assessment of his political stance; I started reading him after this period, and pretty much do so only to appreciate the craftsmanship. Frankly it seems to me that all three of the remaining candidates have positive aspects as well as negative aspects, whatever their party affiliation. And the wonders of RSS aggregation mean that I only rarely have to dive into the Post's horribly built website to find stuff; mostly I just click from my aggregator, and hey presto, I'm there at the article. 8)

[brianrogers.livejournal.com]

Allow me to pick two nits here.

First, I fidn it very hard to see recent events as Clinton getting off the mat and taking it to Obama. After "Super [expletive] Tuesday" it was widely predicted that Obama would do well the next few weeks and that Clinton would win Ohio and Texas, where she held 30% leads and claimed that those would be delegate firewalls. This was quickly forgotten, however, and now her doing worse than everyone predicted - Obama did very well in the lead up to March 4th, and then turned her 30% lead into an effective tie and a 10% lead with virtually no change in the delegate count (indeed, he could possibly win more delegates than her in Texas once the caucus results are finished) - is being portrayed as a scrappy, come from behind victory.

Second, Krauthammer's article seriously downplays the importance of the loose nuclear materials bill. Not only is this, to my mind, a huge issue, it is generally accepted that the bill would not have passed without Obama. It was being blocked by a Republican Senator and would likely have died without hitting the floor, save that Obama had developed a friendship with the Senator in question and convinced him to stop blocking it. It might be wacky that a single Senator can effectively stall legislation, but it happens (Dodd won accolades from the left when he blocked the bill to grant Telecom companies immunity, for example). In such an environment the ability to convince one or two people will get the things that most - but not all - agree on passed. It might not be a profile in courage, but it's effective bipartisan legislation, which is what Obama claims to be offering. For Krauthammer to dismiss it as not being something other than that is disingenuious.

[viktor-haag.livejournal.com]

is being portrayed as a scrappy, come from behind victory

Is it possible that this view is also being promulgated by the Clinton camp because it leads into their traditional clan mythology?

it's effective bipartisan legislation

Good point, Brian. Part of what I like in reading Krauthammer is in the gut-feeling that his position is not quite as effortlessly defensible as he makes it seem, and yet not being able to see the seams. Not being a USAmerican, and not being well-versed in the details of USAmerican political issues, no doubt makes this harder.

That said, my only recommendation for Krauthammer to others is the pure enjoyment of reading something that's so well written; especially given the general level of quality of op-eds these days in the age of the intarwebz. (This in ironic opposition to me not wanting to waste my time on reading books by folks whose socio-political positions I disagree with; I enjoy reading Krauthammer because (a) I think he's a very good writer, and (b) his columns are short 8)).

[brianrogers.livejournal.com]

Is it possible that this view is also being promulgated by the Clinton camp because it leads into their traditional clan mythology?

Oh, almost certainly. If you look back over Clinton's press statements from Super Tuesday forward they steadily reduced expectations from their original high water mark as their poll numbers dropped. So much so that on March 1st or thereabouts she was claiming that unless Obama won both states decisively she should still be considered the de factor winner. Even a loss on her part had become a chance for another reference to the Comeback Kid - especially since Bill came in second in the New Hampshire primary that produced that nickname 16 years ago.