This video is taken from Stanford Law's Lawrence Lessig. Guy's got a sharp knack for flash, I'll say that.
I'm sure that most of you know what my opinion on this video would be. However, as a counterpoint, here are some responses that he got on his own blog.
Comment #1, from Seth Finkelstein
Reasonably argued, but regrets, I don't buy it.
1) Obama's no angel
From factcheck.org: Harry & Louise Again? February 4, 2008
Obama mailer on Clinton health care plan lacks context.
Summary: An Obama mailer stretches the differences between the candidates on health care"
2): Running for President requires an ENORMOUS amount of money. It has to come from somewhere. And Obama gets plenty of fat-cat support (can't give links or the spam-trap will eat this message).3) US foreign policy in the Middle East is majorly driven by the economics of oil and alliances thereof. What the "Arab street" is going to see is not "change" but a colonial administrator, of a type they know real well. You're putting way more importance on symbols meaningful to US liberal intellectuals than make any real difference on the ground.
4) Obama is a rookie. Going up against an experienced, mean, veteran in many senses. I don't see he can handle it. Bleating "Change!" isn't going to cut it.5) Moral courage is easy when there's no cost to it. I view him as mostly having taken a gamble that paid off on opposing the Iraq War, rather than it being an issue of right vs. popular. Anyone who keeps doing right and not popular in politics loses power (to a first approximation).
Comment #2, by joe
Did I miss something? How is a man who is focusing on corruption, implying that Hillary Clinton is not for campaign finance reform and hailing Obama as a beacon of hope? Hillary Clinton is a supporter of public financing (e.g. Canada), whereas Obama is apparently a supporter of people giving money but not lobbyists. Don't ask me how Obama's thing makes sense, or how Mr. Lessig can rail against people for being misleading while being misleading himself!?: Including that blurb about Hillary saying she won't join Edwards and Obama in their election campaign gimmick but leaving out the public financing part. Also, I have never heard anyone argue that Obama has as deep an understanding of the issues as Hillary. It seems intelligence and experience would be the first defense against special interests' misleading attacks. Sorry for the caustic letter, but Mr. Lessig's endorsement is hypocritical and does not make sense based even on his own priorities. It also ignores deep differences in the candidates stances towards health care and other issues. Let's face it, Mr. Lessig is endorsing Barack, like many Europeans, because he is black and charismatic. Not bad reasons, but not good enough. Almost as bad as my reasons for making improper use of a colon above.
Comment #3, from Marc Perkel
Serious factual problems with your video
First - Obama wasn't in the Senate at the time the vote to allow Bush to abuse his powers and start a war. Since that vote Obama has vored the same as Hillary on every issus regarding Iraq. He has not made a single principled vote since he took office.
Second - it was Obama, not Clinton who introduced racism into the South Carolina and quite frankly I'm not going to support Obama unless he apologizes for distorting what clinton said painting Clinton as a racist. You are absolutely dead wrong on this issue. Obama has run a far dirtier campaign that Hillary.
Third - when it comes to "moral strength", look at the 1993 attempt Hillary made on health care reform. Hillary took a principled stand and failed to accomplish anything. One thing about experience is the ability to actually get things done, not just take a principled stand and accomplish nothing. Obama is all talk.
Even though neither of us agree with everything the Clintons did in the 1990s, the have the strongest record of accomplishment of any president in my lifetime. The bottom line is that if Hillary is president you're your going to see more of what accomplished. If we elect Obama we're going to see someone who talks about the problems in a more inspirational manner.
I respect you Larry, but you are totally dead wong on this one.
Here's something I sent out to my Church of Reality mailing list. I didn't make an endorsement, but tried to lay out the issues as cleanly as I can.
And, on a stupider note, comment #4, from Common Sense