maycocksean
Rock n' Roll Doggie Band-aid
Well, at least the author cops to being a Hillary supporter.
But still, this putting forth of the supposed "facts" while ignoring the "spin" on them while accusing the opponent of doing the very same really, really gets my goat.
From the article:
The Lincoln comparison is equally tortured. Yes, Lincoln spent only two years in the House after winning election in 1846. Yet his deep involvement in state and national politics began in 1832, the same year he was elected a captain in the Illinois militia -- and 28 years before he ran for president. He then served as leader of the Illinois Whig Party and served his far-from-undistinguished term in Congress courageously leading opposition to the Mexican War.
After returning home, he became one of the leading railroad lawyers in the country, emerged as an outspoken antislavery leader of Illinois' Republican Party -- and then, in 1858, ran unsuccessfully for the Senate and engaged with Stephen A. Douglas in the nation's most important debates over slavery before the Civil War. It behooves the champions of any candidate to think carefully when citing similarities to Lincoln's record. In this case, the comparison is absurd.
The only reason the comparison is absurd is because the author SAYS its absurd. This kind of argument (very popular on outlets such as Fox News) just drives me nuts. The facts are that Lincoln's only NATIONAL office was his two years in the House--whether they were distinguished or not is ENTIRELY subjective. Lincoln was very politically active for many years and the article makes a good case for that--but look at what the author's done--spun Obama's political activity as minimal and Lincoln's as substanstative. It's not as if Obama was just some guy sitting on his couch who decided to write a book and run for president last year. It's true most of his political involvement has been in the local and state level but here's the thing--the thing the author of this article won't say--SO WAS LINCOLN'S! The author is essentially suggesting that Lincoln's state and local political activity is worthy and Obama's isn't. THAT is absurd. That guy they had as the keynote speaker at the Democratic National Convention in 2004--was he just some neophyte somebody found and stuck on the stage?
But what the hell, a lot of people had great doubts about Lincoln's capacity to lead the country as well. That's historically documented as well.
The shorthanding of the Obama and Clinton campaigns as being about "change" and "experience" is another example of the dumbing down of political discourse in this country and it's very sad.
But still, this putting forth of the supposed "facts" while ignoring the "spin" on them while accusing the opponent of doing the very same really, really gets my goat.
From the article:
The Lincoln comparison is equally tortured. Yes, Lincoln spent only two years in the House after winning election in 1846. Yet his deep involvement in state and national politics began in 1832, the same year he was elected a captain in the Illinois militia -- and 28 years before he ran for president. He then served as leader of the Illinois Whig Party and served his far-from-undistinguished term in Congress courageously leading opposition to the Mexican War.
After returning home, he became one of the leading railroad lawyers in the country, emerged as an outspoken antislavery leader of Illinois' Republican Party -- and then, in 1858, ran unsuccessfully for the Senate and engaged with Stephen A. Douglas in the nation's most important debates over slavery before the Civil War. It behooves the champions of any candidate to think carefully when citing similarities to Lincoln's record. In this case, the comparison is absurd.
The only reason the comparison is absurd is because the author SAYS its absurd. This kind of argument (very popular on outlets such as Fox News) just drives me nuts. The facts are that Lincoln's only NATIONAL office was his two years in the House--whether they were distinguished or not is ENTIRELY subjective. Lincoln was very politically active for many years and the article makes a good case for that--but look at what the author's done--spun Obama's political activity as minimal and Lincoln's as substanstative. It's not as if Obama was just some guy sitting on his couch who decided to write a book and run for president last year. It's true most of his political involvement has been in the local and state level but here's the thing--the thing the author of this article won't say--SO WAS LINCOLN'S! The author is essentially suggesting that Lincoln's state and local political activity is worthy and Obama's isn't. THAT is absurd. That guy they had as the keynote speaker at the Democratic National Convention in 2004--was he just some neophyte somebody found and stuck on the stage?
But what the hell, a lot of people had great doubts about Lincoln's capacity to lead the country as well. That's historically documented as well.
The shorthanding of the Obama and Clinton campaigns as being about "change" and "experience" is another example of the dumbing down of political discourse in this country and it's very sad.