I'm curious, do those who found the piece by Charles offensive find this equally offensive? Show your work.

Funny thing - I didn't read below the link for Blim's article to see your question Norm - but that is exactly what I was thinking. Both of these articles are way overboard. Show my work? C'mon!

Charles Lemos:

Obama's supporters have chosen to vilify the former President, one of the few heroes of the Democratic Party's recent past...

Michael Blim:

George Wallace reflecting on his first and unsuccessful run for governor of Alabama in 1958 defeat, made a remarkable vow. 'Well, boys," he said, “no other son of a bitch will ever out-nigger me again.” Needless to say, no one did, as you might recall.

Perhaps until now. Bill Clinton, self-proclaimed and rather foolishly acclaimed by some who shall go nameless as the first “Black” president has played the race card with a finesse that even Wallace might have admired. He has niggered Barack Obama.

Bill Clinton is neither a hero nor is he George Wallace. Bill Clinton is the best president we've had in the past 40 years, but only because his competition has been so poor. His campaign tactics are bad, but a comparison with George Wallace does more to damage Blim's credibility than Bill Clinton's. Obama's supporters do seem to demand too little programatic specificity from their candidate, but they're not any more "cult-like" than supporters half the politicians who run for office. And if Obama has some political skeletons hanging in his closet, they are small potatoes compared with the metaphorical yard full of corpses buried on which Bush holds his barbecues - or the personal scandal of Chappaquidick.

Bill needs to behave - that's for sure. Frankly, Hillary's heavy-handed use of Bill is, it seems to me, a big mistake even if Bill doesn't cross the too far into dirty politics. I don't want to vote for Bill's wife - if I must vote for Hillary at some point, I want to vote for Hillary - not Bill. The more she appears to be an appendage of Bill, the weaker she seems to be - and she can't have it both ways. The voters will not listen to Bill out on the campaign trail savaging Hillary's opponents in the primaries or beyond and let her get away with her acting like she did in her latest debate: 'It's me up here on stage...'. The electorate may be just stupid enough to let Karl Rove's lying minions serve up a swift-boat smear of Kerry while Bush mouths platitudes 'honoring Senator Kerry's service'. But even the stupidest voter won't let Hillary wash her hands of Bill antics and the voters will furthermore assume she isn't really in charge.

Regarding T-t-T, it's sort of well known that people don't think rationally, but necessity is probably going to force them to drink up eventually.

Regarding whether the Bill/Barack thing is offensive, it is. However, there is a truth I came across beforehand that would resonate with this fellow: Bill took issue with blacks (who make up a significant minority of the Democratic electorate) voting disportionately for Obama, but he conveniently ignored the fact that women (who make up a substantial majority of the Democratic electorate) have voted disproportionately for Hillary (perhaps less overwhelmingly on a percentage basis, but certainly equally with respect to the impact the size of each group allows).

I am not willing to assert a specific reason for this framing by Bill as Michael does, but I have some theories as to why he's done it: (1) political manuevering [or as the author says, "triangulation"], (2) he's being a cry-baby, (3) he's being a hypocrite, (4) he's being a [subtle] racist. There are perhaps other possibilities, and I would not go so far as to throw my honor behind any one of them (as Michael does), but I feel with pretty decent convinction that Bill was doing something worthy of disapproval.

I'm curious, do those who found the piece by Charles offensive find this equally offensive

Both were offensive.

Frankly, Hillary's heavy-handed use of Bill is, it seems to me, a big mistake even if Bill doesn't cross the too far into dirty politics

Yes, all of the candidates have used their spouses to theirr advantage, and why not?

Obama's supporters do seem to demand too little programatic specificity from their candidate, but they're not any more "cult-like" than supporters half the politicians who run for office.

Accusing someone of cult-like support is a bit vague. Program specificity is most important. However, looking back at how they actually voted means a lot too. So many politicians waffle and it thus makes it difficult to know what exactly any of them really truly believe.

I have no idea what the George Wallace quote means? Am I daft? Can anyone explain?

I don't understand the doublespeak of "black women have to wonder who they are going to vote for" while decrying racism. Is it important that obama is black if we are voting for him because he is black? Is it important that Hillary is the first woman if we vote for her because she's a woman?

One major thing about water conservation that i've never understood, is why are we using potable water to pee into? Why not use secondary water for the toilet?

Also, what of the positive feedback loop that drinking your own wastewater creates? Higher levels of estrogen and the drugs we expell through waste would have to be cleansed thoroughly to prevent such a thing, which could be disasterous.

Both were offensive, but one was much longer.

I still maintain that the earlier post sounded more pro-Clinton than pro-Edwards, though, and so the above pro-Obama piece seems more honest.

The statment by George Wallace was made after he lost a close govenors' race to Patterson. Paterson played the anti-black race angle very hard and won the election.

When George swore to never be "out-niggered again" he was declaring that race would be a big part of his campaign strategy in the future.

One of the campaign slogans used in his later victories would be "Beat the Block Vote". The block vote reffered to black voters voting as a block and yes it is easy to interpret that slogan as meaning "Beat the Black Vote".

That is how many of his supporters viewed it. He put himself forward as a racial based States Rights Candidate.

You both get it and don't get it, in two sentences, Norm: most of the thread on Lemos complained that he failed to -- guess what? -- "show his work".

Now, for an example of showing one's work: here's Alterman today. Any questions about the sources he used to derive his opinions? No, they're right there, clearly linked and labeled.

If we're going to see any real progress in politics over the next 10 months, we're going to have to demand that our pundits "show their work.'

Toilet to tap is nothing new. After sewage is treated where does one think it goes? It goes back into the water supply by being dumped into rivers or whatnot. Those drinking water in Missouri are drinking what has been flushed down the toilets in Montana and released into the Missouri river.

Yes, all of the candidates have used their spouses to theirr advantage, and why not?

JoAnn, In my opinion, the reason 'why not' is that using Bill very much will not be to Hillary's advantage. Even Dubya understood that he had to be perceived as independent of his daddy. I think that Hillary, to an even greater extent, has to be perceived as independent of Bill or she will be perceived as weak. When other candidates use their spouses (almost almost wives, of course) there is rarely any question of whether the spouse will overshadow the candidate.

I didn't find the Lemos piece offensive. Vapid, poorly-argued, but inoffensive. But I read teh esponses of this community to that with interest and, for the most part, admiration.

I found Blim's piece offensive, and his repeated use of the racial epithet gratuitous in the extreme.

The posting of this piece by the web master seems also gratuitous, and a puerile thumb-in-your-eye in response to the response to Lemos' piece. The community's responses to Blim's tripe have been more mature and cogent than the piece deserved, IMHO. I'm sorry to see 1GM take this detour.

Even though I despise Hillary Clinton and think her campaign is the same type of ridiculous dynasty quest the Bushies visited upon us, I just don't see the point that this rather offensive and self-centered author is trying to foist upon us.

So, Bill Clinton alluded to the fact that Barack Obama is black. How is that 'niggering' anything? People are actively discussing the fact that Huckabee is a Mormon. We've heard talk of McCain being a POW and a veteran. We've discussed Edwards being a Southerner and a trial lawyer. Why is it that if you discuss the two most dominant traits of the Democratic frontrunners - the fact that one is female and one is black - that's somehow not playing fair?

It's not like Bill Clinton said something offensive about Obama being black. He said, quite logically, that a black candidate probably appeals to black voters. Just like a candidate who rails on and on about ManBearPig appeals to Global Warming Pollyanna's, or people who fear 9/11 times a thousand glom on to Giuliani.

These types of articles are always very illustrative, but not in the way the author intends. They end up showing just how racist/sexist the person writing the article is. He brings up something truly offensive that someone said 50 years ago, and tries to analogize that to something innocuous said today. Persecution complex?

Jeez, this is a side of this website that I haven't seen before...

Ok, NOW can we have a hit piece against John Edwards?

I think its only fair after all!

No need

"The posting of this piece by the web master seems also gratuitous, and a puerile thumb-in-your-eye in response to the response to Lemos' piece. The community's responses to Blim's tripe have been more mature and cogent than the piece deserved, IMHO."

Full agreement. I'm kind of embarassed for losing sight of this myself, but I do still stand by my own opinion nonetheless.

I mean, choosing a crappy article as an emotional cudgel (something no one would support, but offered as a straw man nonetheless) to justify another self-serving article, that has nothing to do with providing insights into current events and social issues. It is a disingenuous attempt at setting an agenda, namely that we should support Edwards instead of Obama (by offering up the idea that cricism of Obama is more justified that critism by Obama supporters by cherry-picking articles, and that implicitly Obama must not be supported).

The really bothersome thing is that there is too much attachment to these candidates, anyway. I can't imagine there is a frontrunner you will agree with on 80%+ on the issues, especially if you take into account the less mainstream ones. The candidate you choose is not your beliefs -- s/he is merely the politician you feel that will most closely reflect your beliefs in terms of the decisions s/he makes, no matter how well or poorly that will be.

Discussing politicians is a necessary evil, but I think we are in too deep here. We may be able to maintain a more civilized and professional environment if we try to take politicians an issue at a time (where we can break matters down into detail, rather than have articles that issue value judgments on politicians as a whole (which generally don't give a damn about "showing their work").

I think that Hillary, to an even greater extent, has to be perceived as independent of Bill or she will be perceived as weak.

Yes, Tim, you're right as I've heard this before. It's just I, personally, don't feel that way. ;)

Phidippides said what I was thinking, except, I was kind of miffed/offended about being called a "cultist". That said, I've never heard of this "Blim" person, and I've never seen him posting on the front page of a website I read regularly, and one where I expect to find mainly rational dialogue.

Norm, are you trying to say something about the relationship of Charles and you? If so, let me be the first to congratulate you on the blog's new direction!

are you trying to say something about the relationship of Charles and you

Nothing more than our political views are similar.