--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "sparaig" <lengli...@...> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <jstein@> wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj <vajradhatu@> wrote: > > > > > <snip> > > > Boy I'm so glad I found out what a women-hater Obama > > > was! I knew he had to be hidin' sometin. And here I > > > thought he was married to someone who's an archetype > > > for empowered women...silly me! > > > > Silly you indeed. Very few of McEwen's examples are of > > anything *Obama* said. They're from the media and blogs > > and his surrogates. > > > > As I said before, he didn't instigate most of the trash- > > talking. But he didn't do anything to squash it, and > > from time to time he even encouraged it. > > > > He doesn't hate women; he's just an opportunist. > > > > This is different from other politicians, including Hillary Clinton? > > > Lawson >
Lawson, Politicians define themselves ideologically by their words and deeds on a political spectrum ranging from left to right. Left is the big Mommy government, "I'll share mine with you." Right is the small Daddy government, "I've got mine, too bad about you." If a politician consistently positions himself either left or right on the political spectrum, consider the politician an ideologue. He has core principles from which he operates. Generally, he will say what he means and do what he says. There is very little second-guessing, about what to expect and you can generally count on him for strong leadership. FDR, Truman, and LBJ were left wing ideologues. Carter was a weak leader but Habitat for Humanity definitely earns him status as a left wing ideologue. In the tradition of FDR and Truman, Bill Clinton stood for Left leaning core principles at heart, but his record of compromises with the right earns his administration a Centrist rating. As president, Clinton, was the consummate pragmatist. Nevertheless, since leaving office his left wing core values have come to the fore. The charitable work he does for the Clinton Foundation positions him as a Left wing ideologue. Reagan and Bush 41 were Right Wing ideologues. A politician who is neither left nor right in word or deed, and does not take a stand based on core principles, is not an ideologue, he is a pragmatist. Generally, you do not know what a pragmatist will do, just know he basis his decision on, "What's in it for me." He will do what is politically expedient rather than govern from core principles, and usually results in weak leadership. Such a politician is an "opportunist." Bush 43 is a mix of pragmatist and ideologue. He is hard to figure out because he was just doing as told in order to increase the power of the executive branch. He governed from the right but I never got the feeling any of it mattered to him, he just liked being King. IMO he would have been just as happy being a tool for the Left. Whichever way the wind blew, as long as it furthered the reach of his power and kept him in power; that was all that mattered. Bush 43 was the consummate opportunist. Hillary, bless her heart, has a long history as a died in the wool ideologue in the tradition of FDR and Truman. I share her political values. I admire her long time advocacy for women and children, her willingness to champion the little guy and I adore her political wonkishness. She speaks brilliantly and in depth on an amazing range of topics without a TELEPROMPTER because the issues MATTER to her enough to own it so completely that she can speak extemporaneously with ease. Glen Greenwald on Salon wrote "Ideology vs. pragmatism: Is one more important than the other?" discusses Obama's tendency to choose pragmatism over ideology. It's an interesting read. http://tinyurl.com/554k3m http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2008/11/24/ideology/index.html
