OK, John, I finally read the whole article in the New Yorker, and I was less than impressed. The writer clearly was focused on Kerry's nuances, as he should be, but summed up each of Bush's policies and actions in terse generalizations that sound like Democrat spin. There was no real critique of Kerry's more controversial statements and flip-flops, except as portrayals of his complexities. And of course, the article also treated all of Kerry's attacks on Bush as passionnate disagreements and legitimate discourse, while belittling Bush's attacks on Kerry as politics.
But the whole point of the article, for me, was that Kerry is a complex thinker, a calculating kind of guy, and likely to be an intense micromanager if he is elected President. Nothing I didn't know before. Unfortunately, to me it comes across as Kerry having very keen hindsight, something more suitable for an analyst than a leader. This is perhaps the reason why he is most passionnate and articulate when it comes to criticizing Bush, but nebulous and ambiguous when it comes to laying out alternatives.
One more thing. The chess analogy was brought up in the article, when a UCSD professor was quoted saying, "Real warriors are often more like chess players than like steroid-crazy defensive linemen." I disagree with the conclusion of that statement, but nevertheless, it aptly describes the way Kerry approaches just about any situation. Of course, I think Kerry would be a "chess master" if he had all the time in the world to think about each move. In "speed chess," however, Kerry would lose way too many games because he'd likely lose track of time.
Tenchusatsu |
