Just after reading an article about this, it strikes me as sensationalism disguised as investigative journalism. I would like someone (and a well-informed someone, not another ideologue with axes to grind) to name me one administration in American history that didn't have discord in the ranks. And if there were such a thing, why the American people should not be frightened of having such a lock-step administration. Again, from the synopsis and excerpts offered by his own Washington Post this morning, I see nothing that really matters, or should matter. Unless of course you're a Republican looking for possible ideas for a stump speech. It's all just divisive politics as usual.
Did I sound divisive? Other than alienating the writer and a few of his fans, I hardly see where I took a political position.... unless you want to argue the whole "everything is political" thing, which I dont. My point was questioning the book is in terms how much of an historical perspective it really offers. We're so much locked in a of tit for tat for every little thing in this country. It's school yard politics gone large, and childish. I'm only wondering (aloud) if Woodward isn't buying into that a little bit. It certainly makes for a kind of a spinal thrill to know that Gen'l Petraeus is arguing with the president. But didn't MacArthur argue with HIS president? (And probably many many other generals in history argued with theirs.) And let's not forget the so-called division in Lincoln's cabinet that Doris Goodwin reminded us about. Something that he engineered, and what presumably Obama has wanted to emulate. I personally don't see what we gain in historical perspective by zeroing in on what otherwise is effectual healthy backroom discussion and dissension. Transparency is a good thing, but then at the same time, it can cause an awful like of Monday morning quaterbacking.
I'm not talking about ideology. I'm talking about zeroing in on otherwise sensationalistic elements. He did the same with Bush and all those that hated Bush rubbed their hands together and went "nyah ha ha". Call me naive, but I'm simply asking "so what?"
A. Voda, you're right. So is Mariano. Too early to tell. I think Woodward is one of the few people who could write a well-researched book about an administration that's less than 2 years old, and that's still in power. I am hoping that this will be more of a snap shot of the inner-workings of team Obama in action, and less of "sensationalism disguised as investigative journalism." Guess I'll have to wait a few more days to find out.