If you think that I should be impressed by the Barbara Ehrenreich hit piece in The Nation, read what Bob Somersby has to say.(Back in 2000, a lot of people on the right and the left laughed at Somersby's non-stop defense of Gore. They don't laugh now.)
I'll add this: Everyone seems to be under the impression that Ehrenreich did original research. She did not. She simply re-hashed one (1) sensationalized article in Mother Jones, which, in turn, relied on one (1) unnamed source. And that source did not say anything to justify Ehrenreich's hyperbolic screed.
Notice how judging a candidate by his or her religious associations suddenly becomes perfectly acceptable to progressives when the candidate is Hillary.
Bottom line: Although the former First Lady has had a peek down a number of differing spiritual paths -- remember when the right damned her as a "new ager" and a "witch"? -- she has remained a boring old Methodist for over twenty years.
Michelle Bernard: Progs routinely screech about Hillary Clinton's supposed ties to the right. Have they not noticed that right-wingers have been pushing Obama? On MSNBC, his biggest fan may be Michelle Bernard. Somersby:
At present, Bernard is CEO of the Independent Women’s Forum, a conservative women’s group founded in 1992. (According to Wikipedia, the IWF grew out of an ad hoc group created to support Clarence Thomas.) The groups directors emeritae include such conservative stars as Lynn Cheney, Wendy Gramm, Midge Decter and Kate O’Beirne. To peruse the group’s web site, just click here.(Emphases added.]
The IWF, like many such groups, is founded as a non-partisan 501(c)(3) group. As such, the group does not endorse candidates. But it does promote a range of conservative causes.
All that is well and good—and Michelle Bernard is the group’s CEO. Which leads us to a puzzling question: As a major conservative, why is Bernard appearing on Hardball so often—to gush about Obama?
ADDED NOTE: Looks like Obama also has friends on Fox. That said, I don't blame Chris Wallace for his walk-out. As much as I dislike Obama, I don't think he should be castigated for that "typical white person" remark. Subjecting each phrase uttered by a candidate to hyper-critical scrutiny is inane. Obama supporters should end such practices, and so should Obama's opponents.
27 comments:
Duck and dodge. Switch the subject. That's all I ever hear from you cowards.
Ain't gonna allow it anymore.
"Notice how judging a candidate by his or her religious associations suddenly becomes perfectly acceptable to progressives when the candidate is Hillary?"
"The groups directors emeritae include such conservative stars as Lynn Cheney, Wendy Gramm, Midge Decter and Kate O’Beirne."
Address the substance. Show some backbone.
This blog will no longer allow the "Duck Dodgers" a voice.
1. What's up with Babs? She went undercover and wrote "Nickel and Dimed", and one of Hillary's earliest campaign messages was very very critical of Wal-Mart, doubtless from her reading Babs and hearing our boy Ralph.
2. (a) One of the lynchpins* of America's racism has been the guilt-ridden fear that the balck man gwine rise up and smite y'all's white ass. In the early 1970s people whispered about a race war, black people were very frightened.
(b) Sooo many people are scared shitless of Hillary because they think she will destroy them for what they did and tried to do to her (and Bill).
*device used for cultivating strange fruit
I've decided to help out all of the "Duck Dodger" types out there. Let me start you out:
"Cannon, you shithead -- of course it's all right for Ehrenreich to criticize Hillary on religious grounds, even though it's not all right for anyone to criticize Obama's pastor. There's no hypocrisy there. For the following reasons..."
Take if from there, folks. Mount an actual argument. Don't switch topics.
Or:
"Cannon, you fool, it's perfectly all right for Barack Obama to receive support from Republicans like Bernard, and for him to take economic advice from Cato-ized die-hard free traders. It's not okay for Hillary to do those things, but it IS okay for Barry. For the following reasons..."
Fill in the rest.
Joseph..sorry for the cut and paste here I just wanted to get it accurately stated from yesterday.
If John Edwards endorses Obama and Kucinich will you respect their judgements? for the welfare of the unity of the Democratic Party and the nation?
Obamaa, for all of his faults, (he is only human) has the charisma, the intelligence and the idealism to spark all the downtrodden, the people of color, the disenfrnchised and the many others nameless citizens laboring selflessly for social justice, whistlemblowers, renegade Republicans, and the youth that are struggling and searching to find leaders that care and have compassion and yes truly Love one e another
Tommorow is the day we have settled on, as the sunrise of the good news guy, and Hhis resurrection as the Prince of Peace. Please speak something kind and caring about Obama for a change and show us your heart.
paste..
This morning Governor Bill Richardson endorsed Barack Obama's candidacy for president.
Governor Richardson called for a new generation of leadership that would bring us together here at home and strengthen our relationships with our allies abroad.
He praised Barack's speech on race in America this week as an example of courageous, thoughtful, and inspiring leadership. He thanked Barack for speaking to us as adults, and reminding us that cynicism is not realism, and that hope is not folly.
He rias risen
He has risen indeed
Lawrence
You ducked the question. I should delete your message -- but I will not, for reasons which will soon be apparent.
First, I must tell you that your cultish praise -- "He has risen indeed" -- is enough to give anyone diabetes.
God, what sentimental dreck! No-one should spew that kind of religious crap about ANY candidate -- EVER.
Seriously, do you have any self-awareness? Do you have any idea what a bad impression you make? You make all other Obama supporters look like brainwashed zombies.
Okay, let's address your main points...
John Kerry endorsed Obama. If he can't turn me, what makes you think Dennis Kucinich or Bill Richardson can?
John Edwards is ambitious and will go to whomever gives him the best deal. He wants the veep slot. I accept the fact that he is ambitious. That doesn't meant that he can turn me around. (That said, I don't think Obama will offer him that slot.)
I have already told you what I thought about Obama's speech. You didn't read my words, apparently. That's fine -- but why do you come here if not to read my words? Doesn't make sense.
And in light of your puerile "he has risen" remark, I seriously question your ability to judge anything pertaining to adulthood.
Now let me ask you a question -- a question arising from your reference to unity. I bet you'll dodge it.
What would it take for you NOT to vote for the Democratic candidate?
Don't say that you would vote for the Dem no matter what. Every one of us has a line that cannot be crossed.
I mean, you wouldn't vote for a child rapist, would you?
And I don't think you would vote for someone who ran on a platform of "Nuke the West Coast!"
For each of us, there is a theoretical point where we must say: "No, sorry, it tears me apart -- but I just can't vote for that guy, even if he does have a D next to his name."
So let me rephrase the question.
Suppose the Republican opponent were the most liberal Republican in 40 years. You don't like the guy at all, but he does seem to be at least a little better than the creep we have now.
And suppose the leading Dem candidate happens to be white. Gender doesn't matter, for the purposes of this particular thought experiment.
What DOES matter is that this white candidate is locked in a heated battle with black candidate.
Suppose you learn that this white candidate made an naked appeal to racial solidarity when speaking to a colleague in congress. Suppose this white candidate said: "Don't support the black guy. Do you want to be the one to stand between the white candidate and the presidency?"
Let's go further.
Let's suppose that this white candidate had a proxy whose job it was to strong-arme congressmen. Let us suppose this proxy has spread the word that any congressman who refused to support his candidate would face primary challenges.
I think we could agree that any white candidate who acted in such a fashion would be a racist SOB.
In fact, he would be downright evil.
In my view, any racist bastard (or bitch) who made those threats on Capitol Hill does not deserve to be president.
I think congressfolk should support a candidate based on character, not on skin color. Saying "Vote for me because I'm white -- you don't want the black guy to win" is unforgivable.
That's how I look at it.
What's your view? Would you be willing to vote for that candidate? Or does he cross the line?
Now read the ad that I've got running on the right side of this page. Toward the bottom. You should see three or four instances of it.
Tell me: WHAT'S THE DIFFERENCE?
Answer.
God, if I had money I would PAY you to answer. So many of my readers have been cowardly "Duck Dodgers." They duck and they dodge.
Don't be like that.
I have answered your question forthrightly. Now, you should answer mine -- and do NOT change the subject.
Ok, this Republican topic you're demanding, presuming Obama has ties with them? What do you make of the fact that Rush got so many Republicans in TX and OH to vote Hillary? There are states where this is a felony, but Rush made no bones about his message, or his reasoning:
http://www.alternet.org/democracy/80392/
Is this Hillary's fault? Applying the same logic you applied to Obama, it would be.
As for your question as to what it would take to NOT vote for a Democrat, my answer is this: a HELLUVA lot more than this petty, picayune nonsense you're obsessing over. You seem to think you have Obama dead to rights as a liar, but you have shown absolutely no evidence whatsoever proving that the man himself actually told a lie. You may buy the evidence you think you have, but it's just not compelling. And then you reject evidence to the contrary, such as Careful JFK guy's analysis (far more compelling than yours, dude).
You have such an amazingly short and selective memory when you try to paint Obama as the most heinous campaigner ever to hit the US! Good grief, aren't you old enough to remember Atwater, and what Rove did to McCain in SC?
Your anger has just completely destroyed your ability to reason and think logically. It's the saddest thing.
Someone here tries to point out that you are just pissed off, and that would be my take, except that you're not just pissed off about this Obama stuff, you're pissed off at the world, and you're taking it out on Obama and your readers just because you can. What a bully.
Joseph, if you're not interested in what people are saying to you, if you truly disdain our opinions as "lies" and us as "cowards," then why don't you just turn off the comments altogether and see what happens. You've done it before, what's stopping you now? Or are you enjoying being the mean and nasty dictator?
Go ahead, show complete disdain for us and shut off the comments, doubledare you. You might then find that freedom you spoke of somewhere here.
Meanwhile, I just read this piece, and instantly thought of you, before I thought of Kos or DU or anyone.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/22/opinion/22egan.html?em&ex=1206331200&en=15225258008f39d7&ei=5087
"Show some backbone" yourself. Try being human for a day, as Lawrence so kindly suggests. Kindly - mean anything to you?
You may hate me, but I have played fair. I told you I would delete comments that ducked the issue, and I did.
I deleted comments that praised me. I kept the one comment that did indeed address the issue, even though this person insults me.
annoyed, thank you. I mean that. You showed courage and intellectual honesty. YOU are worth talking to. The others -- even the ones who like me -- don't matter to me right now.
I realise that the "No Duck Dodgers" rule that I've set down is unusual. I've never instituted such a thing before and probably will not again. But at this moment, it seems useful.
I have forced myself to answer every argument posed to me. I've often done so with fire, but I have always tried to put example and evidence behind even the harshest of my words.
I am trying to challenge the Clinton-haters and the Obama-is-my-Messiah gushers to do the same. In fact, I'm insisting on it.
Why? Because a lot of people who get pissed off at me try to formulate a counter-argtument in their heads.
And they just can't do it. They do not have one.
They won't admit that they got nothin', so they will either not post, or they will offer a comment which relies on subject-switching. Which I will not allow.
(It's like arguing with a fundamentalist about the discrepancies between the gospels. Ever do that? After a few minutes they change the topic. Every time. It's hilarious.)
That said, annoyed, you simply are not specific enough. Look at your words...
"As for your question as to what it would take to NOT vote for a Democrat, my answer is this: a HELLUVA lot more than this petty, picayune nonsense you're obsessing over. You seem to think you have Obama dead to rights as a liar, but you have shown absolutely no evidence whatsoever proving that the man himself actually told a lie. You may buy the evidence you think you have, but it's just not compelling."
I do not think you have read carefully. In the question that I have posed earlier in this thread, I did not address the subject of lying, did I?
No. I addressed the subject of race. Specifically, I addressed whether it is ever acceptable to scour for congressional support on the basis of racial solidarity.
I argued that it would be racist for a white candidate to do that.
I implied that it would be just as bad for a black candidate to do thta.
You may think differently. I would be interested to hear you make that argument. I'm not being smarmy when I say that, either -- let's hear it.
By the way, did I say that I thought Obama was the heinous campaigner of all time? No. I could never have voted for Bush (even if I had agreed with him politically, which I did not) after what his campaign did to McCain. Bush crossed the line of acceptable behavior.
And I hold Bush responsible for Rove's behavior, just as I hold Obama responsible for JJ Jr.s behavior. (Jackson being roughly analagous to Rove in terms of campaign position.)
In truth, annoyed, the example you cite buttresses my point.
So the basis of your point is completely wrong. I did not talk about lying at all, at least not here. And you simply have not shown example and evidence to explain why it was all right for Jackson to do whtat he did, but not okay for a white pol to do the exact same thing.
You've shown some courage, annoyed. Ready to take the next step?
(Incidentally, The reason I did not turn the comments off was precisely so I could "force" a reader such as yourself to engage the argument. You are what I was hoping for.)
By the way, if you are curious: Lawrence simply ducked my question in a most cowardly fashion. Then he spewed some religious crap.
Joseph wants FDR-style republicanism with its mandates for social safety nets, preferably sanitized. Eleanor saw the conditions in DC housing - no indoor plumbing, no electricity. She demanded that Franklin do something about it. A close friend counter-demanded: But then how will anyone tell the difference between them and us? FDR called Lyndon, the new Congressman from Texas, in for a chat. Only God knows what FDR got LBJ to agree to, but LBJ's district in Texas got electricity in the bargain.
Joe's new poster of JJJr and Barry evokes those solemn portraits of the Kennedy bros that graced Look, The Saturday Evening Post, and Life. All so handsome!
These guys, JJJr and his gang, are playing fair, by the rules, and evidently for keeps because of the stakes. You call it coercion and racial opportunism, but it's another version of empowerment politics, particularly using the fearsome 'boycott', but it doesn't look or sound like a boycott. JJJr heard about boycotts in utero. It's also called identity politics. Single-issue politics. Enlightened self-interest. It's my spin being different from your wringer-washer machinery.
They also heard Bill Russell in a long-running TV ad say, "If you have a shot, take it; don't pass off". And "A mind is a terrible thing to waste". They're hard-wired for it, dude.
If Barry becomes POTUS, you can look forward to appointments that will BEGIN TO DISMANTLE the programmatic malignancies of the Reagan era and the last 7 years, even if he's not qualified or honest enough for your principles.
Ok, I can tell already I am going to regret this, because I have a rule to walk away from anyone forcing an argument on his or her own terms, and especially someone who does it as venomously as you have been doing.
Before I take the bait, I just want to say that I resent, and am insulted, when you assume that anyone who disagrees with you is an "Obamaniac" and a "prog" and whatever else you hurl our way. I am sure there are supporters of Obama who have made that choice with less thought than others, but I am also sure that is true of Hillary supporters, and certainly McCain supporters. For you to toss all of us into some dustbin or other based on your mean criteria is not only insulting, it's just wrong. You don't know anything about me, and yet you have repeatedly thrown me into bed with even Republicans just because you assume, since I don't agree with you, that I support Obama. You need to cut that out.
That said, your specific question:
"whether it is ever acceptable to scour for congressional support on the basis of racial solidarity."
I'm with Aitchd on this, though I am taking him on presumed interpretation. And I will not pretend to speak about these things as intellectually as he does, but after all these years of never commenting more than a sentence or two, here goes.
My answer is yes, it would be "ever" acceptable. In this case, I can completely understand - without necessarily endorsing it or not - how someone would use this, not as a strategy, but just as a truth in discussion.
You may find that repugnant, and clearly the entire notion strikes some crazed nerve in you, but there is another way to understand how that might be a reasonable thing to expect.
Now as a quick aside (and this is where I just don't want to get into nit-picking details, not because I am not good at that - it's my job, actually - but because I think that's missing the overall point, which is what I think Aitchd was trying to say?), I have taken the time to check the links attached to those gawdawful creepy sidebars you have added to your site. And guess what? It's all Sean Wilentz!! He is, as far as I can tell, your ONLY source on this sinful accusation. And Wilentz puts these accusations in quotes, but does not reference those sources. (Legally speaking, that's dicey, but regardless it's bad journalism.)
Also, besides the fact that Wilentz is known to be a strong Hillary supporter, his piece is just not compelling. It strikes me as extremely one-sided and very weak on hard evidence. And unsourced quotes don't cut it.
Still, having read it weeks ago and prior to your referencing it, I took note of it and waited for the hard evidence to emerge.
Instead, what we got was Obama being accused of the Canadian NAFTA stuff (didn't somebody here try to point out what's really gone on there?) and then the Wright bashing. Both of these events can only be interpreted as attacks on Obama, not Hillary, so any point you've tried to make about Hillary getting more bashed than Obama comes into question.
I should also say that I have been a huge fan of Hillary's for as long as she has been in the public eye. I admire her, I supported her healthcare efforts in the 90s, and I staunchly defended her against crazed and thinly veiled misogynists right and left. I have been disgusted and appalled at what the vast rightwing conspiracy tried to do to her and Bill, and I have been mighty impressed with how they handled themselves in those situations.
And I have supported her run for the Senate, and now for President I think she would make an excellent President. In fact, I think she would be excellent at anything she put her mind to. She's an amazing woman and civil servant. I am proud of her, recognizing full well that she is not perfect and is quite capable of making mistakes.
So I don't hold her responsible for the NAFTA story or the Wright story or the Somalian turban photo or the 3 AM phone ad, even though you're right, she's in charge.
You see, politics has become such a damn dirty mess here, and anyone who gets involved is just going to get dirty. It's a very sick truth, and I hope whoever is elected will help change that, but until then, there it is.
And getting dirty may mean simply taking advantage of a story or situation that occurs, without having had any intention to push an issue or agenda. That is, these days (probably always), considered good politics, good campaigning.
But you're right, Bush was responsible for Rove's cruelties, each of which have gone far beyond what you're accusing Obama of. Still, I do hold each candidate responsible for keeping some controls in place for what does occur intentionally, in that you want to make sure your staff is not planting stink bombs, but you also want them to be very smart and savvy. In that respect, I have to say, Mark Penn has been an utter disaster, and Bill has not been the best, either, making some comment in the last couple of days that made me cringe (can't recall what). That said, I feel Hillary may well have committed as many sins here as Obama does, maybe more, who the hell knows?
I just have to say that you have not offered convincing evidence that Obama is such the demon in all this. Sean Wilentz does not a case make. Sorry, but it's too thin.
And worse than that, you have thrown down such a gauntlet, how will you ever recover? Your integrity is now on the line, and you've got this crazed notion that you are absolutely right, no one can trump you on this singular point (which seems to keep shifting slightly), taking this frighteningly familiar "bring 'em on" attitude. And you'll be damned if you give Obama credit for any damn thing, threatening to vote for McBush! My god, man, you have become the utterly destructive progressive you've been (rightly) warning about for months and months. And I know I'm not the only one who has made this observation.
But back to the question of whether or not it's ok to do what Wilentz accuses Jackson Jr of doing, of allegedly "threatening" various members of Congress to back Obama.
I just don't see it that way, not as a threat. It might have been, but I have memories of being exceedingly impressed with Jackson the one or two times I've heard him speak and get interviewed, and I just don't think so. Not in the sort of Mafia way you seem to be insinuating. If that was the case, I don't think it was appropriate. I just don't think that was the case. I mean, you wonder why Hillary would make some PR blunder, as if this means she could never make such an error because it was not smart, but you don't apply this same standard to Obama. What's that about?
But here's where you just fail to get the big picture, Joseph. There is a way to read those words Wilentz quoted not as threats, but as simple declarations of a truth. And I would bet the farm that that truth was not unknown to any of those black Congresspeople, not ANY of them. That truth had to have been bugging them relentlessly if they had felt already committed to Hillary.
Not only "do you want to be known as standing in the way of a black President," but "you could see the rug going out from under you." It is so easy for me to imagine these two statements in very real discussions about how to consider the situation. Jackson aside, don't you see how any black elected official would have to consider these realities?
You see, that question of "am I going to stand in the way of a black man becoming President" has occurred to EVERY every single black person in this country! With the obvious exceptions of Alan Keyes and Ken Blackwell and that Uncle Tom ilk.
This is just a simple truth you do not seem to have considered, and that fact has so thoroughly tainted your perspective, it's scary.
And it is something of this kind of lost perspective that Obama's speech was attempting to address, this fact that we can each get so caught up in our own perspective, our own limited reality, we lose sight of the big picture. And that big picture is this: Race IS an issue in this country, don't kid yourself. Blacks STILL suffer prejudice, but it differs from what our parents suffered, and our grandparents. Slavery happened, and it has left a legacy that has infected us all, both white and black.
Obama addressed this point. He recognized openly how whites must feel, and the reasons why. What that speech was about, Joseph, was how we must, as a country and a people, rise above that division. And the only way to do that is to acknowledge what we have each suffered, both black and white, Hispanic and Asian, Native American, for crying out loud. All of us.
This is what pushed Richardson over to Obama's camp. That speech was the most powerful speech I have ever heard, and I heard MLK Jr bring down manna from heaven!
Obama does not present his ideas with emotion or passion. He is not a preacher like MLK or Wright. He is a lawyer. And as such, he must present his arguments in measured tones, simply but logically, rationally. But also respectfully, as any lawyer will tell you that you cannot insult your jurors.
And that's the point on which Obama excelled, he respected everyone within earshot and invited us all to the table. It's actually inspiring if you bother to listen.
I mean, even Peggy Noonan acknowledged this, which I linked to (in addition to Scot Horton's second commentary on The Speech), so I'll try again here:
http://online.wsj.com/article/declarations.html
http://www.harpers.org/archive/2008/03/hbc-90002707
You may find all this sappy, but you're the smaller for it.
Which is why I have bothered, after all this, to write so much when I have never, in all the years I have visited this blog, posted more than a sentence or two.
I have bothered here and now because this extreme position you have taken is very dangerous, not just politically for any democrat and all democrats (I know you have asserted here somewhere that you are a liberal and your loyalties will always be with the Democrats), but for you personally.
The political fallout for asserting the extreme position you've taken seems clear enough. Many of those who have visited here recently have tried to make the point that you are now being not just a little hypocritical to have spent so much time flogging progressives who attacked Democrats and threatened to vote Republican.
And here you are, in the skin of your own monster. This is no big insight as several others have seen it. And there may be others you removed, who knows.
Still, I can't stop writing here until I get this out, too.
You are not yourself. Or this is really you and the past few years have been an act. I cannot begin to tell you how hard it is to watch. You just seemed to me to be much bigger than this, with more class and reasonableness.
I hate to be blunt, but it reminds me of watching my friend become so enraged after his bitter divorce that he just despised the world, and would pick a fight with any and everybody. Just thinking about him breaks my heart, as I really love him, but he let his anger eat him alive, and now no one even knows where he is.
Joseph, you are so out of control, and it is getting increasingly hard to tolerate. You forbid anyone to insult you, and yet you insult anyone and everyone with abandon. And with such crass, filthy language, it's just so unnecessary.
You have lost any balance you might have had, all your sense of humor, and though you may be getting a lot of visitors, you're rejecting anyone with a position you cannot accept, so what are you left with?
There is something terribly terribly wrong, and it is not Obama and it's not the progs and it's not the trannies. Something must have hurt you really deeply for you to have gone into this self-destructive spiral, and I can certainly sympathize with that. But the way you seem to be going after everyone, it seems like you're just bent on destroying yourself.
I have kept coming the past couple of weeks, hoping to see some change in your tone, or at least in your topic, to suggest you've broken this spell of obsession and can take a step back. But you're relentless, and you keep burning bridges. I mean, what did Dr. Elsewhere ever do to you to deserve such rude treatment?
No one can keep up such a pace for long. I think I speak for others when I say there is a great deal of concern out here, and it's more about you than it is about Obama or the trannies.
I don't have any desire to tangle with you. You're not behaving rationally, and have made clear you'll reject what you don't want to hear. But I just had to get all that out there because this whole thing makes me so very sad and worried. I couldn't live with myself if I were not honest about this with you.
And I can't write anymore. I apologize for going on like this, but it had to be said. I don't know how you keep up this pace! Just this much has completely exhausted me.
Enough.
I will respond at length to annoyed's fine and brave work -- at last, a stone on which to hone one's rasp! -- but first I want to make one response to H...
"Joe's new poster of JJJr and Barry evokes those solemn portraits of the Kennedy bros that graced Look, The Saturday Evening Post, and Life. All so handsome!"
That was intentional. I didn't want to be accused of "darkening" the portraits.
But don't you see the way the game has been rigged here? I can do whatever I like, in terms of image manipulation, if a politician is white. In the past, I have literally turned Cheney into the devil.
But if you fire up P-shop and do the same with images of Obama or any other black person (of ANY political stripe), you'll be accused of racism.
Is that fair? Is that equality?
(Annoyed, one point: Yep, on my blog, I'm allowed to set some terms. Your blog, your terms.
Beyond that, you have my congratulations, and my thanks for writing so well.)
Annoyed and eloquent one: since the SCOTUS struck down most obscenity laws, curmudgeons have been sounding viler and viler without actually being so.
I'm lucky, not being pulled this way or that. I love Hillary, I want Barry to be POTUS, and I'll vote for John Edwards next month if he's still on the ballot.
"But don't you see the way the game has been rigged here? I can do whatever I like, in terms of image manipulation, if a politician is white. In the past, I have literally turned Cheney into the devil.
"But if you fire up P-shop and do the same with images of Obama or any other black person (of ANY political stripe), you'll be accused of racism.
Is that fair? Is that equality?"
Guilt is the fear of being envied - Tom Wolfe, "I am Charlotte Simmons".
(Ooo, I copy/pasted)
The last delete was from our friend Lawrence, who did his usual duck and dodge routine. He also talked about Jesus.
Larry, tune in tomorrow. I have something just for you.
Okay, I finally have the time to answer annoyed. (As you can see, I have been busy elsewhere.)
A, when your argument is reduced to its essence, you are simply giving a "What he said" thumb's up to HD. So here is what H said:
"These guys, JJJr and his gang, are playing fair, by the rules, and evidently for keeps because of the stakes. You call it coercion and racial opportunism, but it's another version of empowerment politics, particularly using the fearsome 'boycott', but it doesn't look or sound like a boycott. JJJr heard about boycotts in utero. It's also called identity politics. Single-issue politics. Enlightened self-interest."
You're right, H. I call it coercion and racial opportunism. And you have not given me one reason to call it anything else.
Back to annoyed:
"I can completely understand - without necessarily endorsing it or not - how someone would use this, not as a strategy, but just as a truth in discussion.
You may find that repugnant, and clearly the entire notion strikes some crazed nerve in you..."
It's not crazy. I just happen to think equality is equality is equality. I don't think a white should act that way; I don't think a Catholic should act that way; I don't think a Jew should act that way; I don't think a fundamentalist should act that way; I don't think a black should act that way.
You can't accuse me of being unfair.
Now let's get to the meat of your letter:
"Also, besides the fact that Wilentz is known to be a strong Hillary supporter, his piece is just not compelling. It strikes me as extremely one-sided and very weak on hard evidence. And unsourced quotes don't cut it."
If we have to toss out Wilentz because he likes Hillary, then we have to toss out everything you say because you like Obama. Cah-MON. Surely you can see the absurdity of going down that road...?
As for the matter of sourcing -- well, it is true that sourcing becomes more and more important depending upon whether you like or dislike what the source is saying. That's just human nature.
Still, I would say this. Wilentz did, in fact, NAME Congressman Cleaver as the key witness to a damning quote. In all likelihood, Cleaver would be the only such witness -- although I suppose it is possible that an aide was standing around.
Would Wilentz MAKE UP such an inflammatory story and then cast it in such terms that his named witness could simply deny the story?
Ridiculous. Think about it. Even if Wilentz were the sort of guy who would just fabricate shit out of whole cloth -- and I don't think he is -- then he would surely be bright enough to reference only an unnamed congressman. Doing otherwise takes on an unnecessary risk. A legal risk, perhaps.
And even if we leave the law out of it, the fact is this: Naming Cleaver means that the lie would be quickly exposed -- if it WERE a lie. No such exposure has come forth, and so I think the story is true.
But.
If it makes you feel better, someone much better known than I am (can't name names) has expressed some interest in this story, and may do some checking.
If he decides to pass up the story (this journalist leans toward Obama), then I may make some calls myself. Even though I take Wilentz' account at face value.
Fair enough?
"You see, that question of "am I going to stand in the way of a black man becoming President" has occurred to EVERY every single black person in this country! With the obvious exceptions of Alan Keyes and Ken Blackwell and that Uncle Tom ilk."
You reference to Keyes and Blackwell only demonstrate the absurdity of that sort of thinking. Those two guys also exemplify how foolish it would be to vote based on racial solidarity instead of character and policy. Fortunately, most black people understand this point, and they will not support guys like Keyes just because he is black.
Incidentally, I would not classify Keyes as an Uncle Tom, but only because I'm not sure HOW to classify Keyes. The guy is just...odd.
"And that's the point on which Obama excelled, he respected everyone within earshot and invited us all to the table."
I've heard exactly similar stories about Reagan. Big deal.
Re: The NAFTA thing...
"Both of these events can only be interpreted as attacks on Obama, not Hillary, so any point you've tried to make about Hillary getting more bashed than Obama comes into question."
The Goolsbee revelation wasn't "bashing." It was a leak. And an important one.
"So I don't hold her responsible for the NAFTA story or the Wright story or the Somalian turban photo or the 3 AM phone ad, even though you're right, she's in charge."
Listen to yourself. She's in charge of the Globe and Mail? She's in charge of Fox News and ABC? (The Kossacks seem to think so!) She's in charge of Matt Drudge?
This is the point where I usually shout "Have you gone NUTS?" But I'm trying to be nice. It's Easter.
"I have memories of being exceedingly impressed with Jackson the one or two times I've heard him speak and get interviewed..."
Yeah, and I voted for his dad in '88. So what? Is that an excuse for his behavior?
"My god, man, you have become the utterly destructive progressive you've been (rightly) warning about for months and months."
No, that's Markos Moulitsas you're talking about there. He's the one printing all the "Vince Foster! Vince Foster! Vince Foster!" crap. More than anyone else, he's the one who -- finally -- after four decades -- caused me to give up on the idea of absolute loyalty to the Democratic party. My prog readers could not manage that trick, but HIS obnoxious example finally, finally did.
"I hate to be blunt, but it reminds me of watching my friend become so enraged after his bitter divorce that he just despised the world, and would pick a fight with any and everybody."
Dude, my everyday attitude is fine. Look at the Easter homily above. I still appreciate a good dirty joke, I still love great music, and I still enjoy researching weird and arcane things. Believe it or not, the few people who see me every day consider me phlegmatic and soft-spoken.
But when Obama supporters keep repeating the same anti-Clinton lies that so infuriated me back in 1990s -- yep, you bet I get pissed off. Always will.
Hey, if you think I'm bad, take a look at Larry Johnson's blog. That guy is so hard-core he makes me look like a pussycat.
I think that covers the meat of what you had to say. But let me address some side issues...
"I have a rule to walk away from anyone forcing an argument on his or her own terms..."
Actually, I quite understand where you are coming from, here. But try to look at it from my perspective.
Time and again, over the past week or two, I have made what I consider damning points. And the Obamabots just dodge them. They just plain dodge and duck and switch the subject.
Did Kos EVER apologize for that lie about the video codec? Nope. He just dropped (dodged) the issue. That STILL fries my ass.
I can stay up all hours mounting an elegant argument against something said by the Obamabots -- and they don't acknowledge it. Instead, they switch topics, as people always do when they have no other recourse.
I put that "Fairy Tale" video up. Did ANY Obama supporter have the decency to say "Gee, I guess I was wrong on that point?" Nope.
So try to look at it from my point of view. Can't you see how frustrating it is to deal with cowardly topic-switchers, day after day after day?
I'm not necessarily looking for someone to agree with me. Best of all is someone who will DISagree, but who will address the issues instead of doing the old topic-switch sidestep.
I think my use of the term "cowardice" to describe such behavior is perfectly justified. Some people say "coward" is to harsh a word. Well, if you can think of a nicer word that conveys the same idea, I'll use it.
"I mean, what did Dr. Elsewhere ever do to you to deserve such rude treatment?"
I was far from rude to her. You may think so, but you don't know the full story. If you are interested, write to me privately and I will tell you what really went down behind the scenes.
"I don't know how you keep up this pace! Just this much has completely exhausted me."
One reason I got into blogging was to teach myself how to write rapidly. I used to be very slow. Now, I can turn out first-draft copy quicker than it takes you to read it. Of course, as you can see from the comments section, the first draft copy is usually pretty terrible. If I have time, I try to polish up the main posts.
"You're right, H. I call it coercion and racial opportunism. And you have not given me one reason to call it anything else."
You aren't the target or the victim, you're not running for office or part of a campaign staff. You're a nobody in no position to condemn, you lack that kind of authority and ethos. You could say that if Barry condones such coercion and opportunism, it puts him beneath contempt. Anyway, 'coercion and racial opportunism' shows progress.
If ANY candidate running for office makes use of that kind of coercion, then yeah, I am the target. You too.
Post a Comment