Rich withdraws enough to point this out: “Mr. Obama isn’t flawless.”
Well, thank god, or else I’d have to add Rich’s name to the Obama Man-Crush Scoreboard.
Don’t get me wrong. I am intrigued by and hopeful about Obama and his candidacy. But voters and op/ed columnists alike should know better than to get all swoony about presidential candidates. While you go all swoony you’re not paying close attention, and that’s how people wind up with nasty future ex-spouses and neurosyphilitic presidents.
Words of warning: Swoon now, get kicked in the teeth later.
To balance out the warm fuzzies he has drawn in pastel shades for Obama, Rich paints some cold nasties in puke-green for McCain and Clinton.
This particular cold nasty offended me because it’s a worthless open-ended comparison. It insults my intelligence.
The Obama forces out-organized the most ruthless machine in Democratic politics because the medium of their campaign mirrored its inclusive message. [emph added]Rich doesn’t establish any historic criteria for “ruthless” let alone “most ruthless” or cite any specific instances of such “most ruthless“ behavior. He’s a NYT op/ed columnist, dammit --he has the power to simply declare such things.
But Rich’s declaration got me thinking. If Hillary Clinton’s 2008 campaign was run by the Frank Rich-certified-most-ruthless-machine-in-Democratic-politics-ever, then who’s No. 2 now? Who got jumped in the rankings? And so I sent Rich this email.
In your recent column ("One Historic Night, Two Americas,” June 8, 2008), you unilaterally declared that the Clinton 2008 campaign was run by "the most ruthless machine in Democratic politics."There’s been no response, but it’s early days yet.
Well, it’s your column.
I’d really like to know is which ruthless Democratic political machine got demoted to second place. If Hillary’s ruthless political machine is now No. 1, who’s the new No. 2?
Anybody have any opinions as to who No. 2 is?