http://www.amazon.com/Bridge-Life-Barac ... 713&sr=8-4

Opening a thread for this because I am about 1/3 through it, and I plan to make a few posts when I'm done, specifically to further address [that whiny loser]'s lie that "Remnick's book vindicates his claim that Obama is a Marxist extremist."

At this juncture I have this to say:

I am slightly surprised at the extent to which Obama in his college years and early professional life was a writer, himself considered writing as a career, or was considered writer material by professors and employers. In fact his first job out of Columbia was as a writer, for a foreign trade think tank. Writing competed in his first year after undergrad college with community organizing as the path he thought he might follow. Organizing won.

That's notable enough (and very cool IMO), but what's more notable is that I was surprised at all. I've read Dreams, I've read and watched his speeches, I know he has every capacity of a decent writer. So why was I surprised?

I think it signals the success of the 'who wrote Dreams?' smear -- and the fact that the meme even entered my consciousness disgusts me. But I must be honest: I've heard far more over the past 4 years questioning his writing chops than celebrating them. And the Remnick book is full of quotes and references to people who encouraged him to write, people who commented on what a keen observer he was, how well spoken; and records how much writing he did: not just that first job, but literary magazines, poetry, speeches, letters, a personal journal (which he later drew on for Dreams), etc.

The complete picture of Obama is that of a highly literate*, versatile, expressive mind and an appetite for communication. It should be no surprise that he should write well and often, speak without notes, and debate fluently.

Which all only underscores the unreason and hate that drive the Cashill smears and the teleprompter smear.

So here was an interesting passage I came across in "The Bridge":


Who knew that out of the tomes reams pittance of documentation of Obama's history, there could be found this precious sentiment, placing the Great Usurper himself on the same side as his Moldovan nemesis!

There's lots of interest on almost any page of the Remnick, but the first paragraph of the section I quoted above is interesting beyond its context for my little Orlyanka jibe (above).

Certainly the GOP have been "strident opponents" -- so why haven't they shown that they "feel understood" (such as when, for example, so much of the Health Care Reform bill was tailored for the likes of Olympia Snowe, who eventually voted against it).

One obvious reason -- almost certainly the most salient -- is that the question is ridiculous: pure politics dictates that you don't "show" that you feel "understood." At least the scorched earth politics of the day dictates this.

But I am thinking of a subtler reason: much of the "strident opposition" is not honest. It is solely political, with no true conviction or principle behind it, or under it. In a way, by playing this dumbshow to Obama's strength (synthesis, conciliation, balance), they have defanged him. Of what use is "yes, I see where you are coming from, and let's talk about how to reach common cause," when one's adversary is not actually "coming from" anywhere?

Jodi Kantor in The Obamas makes this point in the context of the stimulus bill, very early in the administration:


I had previously thought that GOP obstructionism (as an echo of Limbaugh's "I hope he fails") was purely a long game -- that they simply hoped to deny this Presidency as much accomplishment and momentum as possible, thus weakening Obama for 2012; but these writers are convincing me that the tactic (bolstered by Fox News' 24/7 negativism and many, many lies) paid off quickly, and more damagingly: it denied Obama the opportunity to do the one thing he knew to do with an adversary -- turn them into a sort of partner.

I believe Obama has learned a few tricks since then. But the big question seems to be whether he can win back the women, the youth, the environmentalists, and the progressive base, with enough enthusiasm to bring them to the polls, and especially with enough enthusiasm to win back the House.