The Difference between a Disaster and a Calamity
please note This post is mostly a response to the many direct questions addressed to Charles that didn't get covered in the comments. It will also be the last by him on this particular topic.
contributed by Charles Lemos
Benjamin Disraeli, the long serving British Tory Prime Minister from the Victorian Era, was asked that question, what the difference is between a disaster and a calamity. His response, using as a foil the leader of the Liberal opposition William Gladstone, is one of the greatest quips in political history. Disraeli, in a typical dry British wit, responded wryly that a disaster would be if Gladstone were to fall into the Thames and a calamity would be if someone were to pull him out. That is how I have to come to view the Democratic Primary. For the progressive left, it is now a question of a disaster versus a calamity.
My main complaint is that many of you are reading things that I did not say. Briefly though, I never compared Obama to Shi’ites. I suggested that you read Canetti for his description of the Shi’ites as it illuminates their behaviour. Nor am I accusing him of being a totalitarian ruler in waiting, rather that he has the potential for authoritarianism. I think both Nixon and Reagan were authoritarian for example. And I think Obama wants to be a Democratic Reagan. I am uncomfortable with tyranny from the left or the right. Blair made Britain a society under surveillance and that worries me because like Britain the United States is becoming a surveillance society. According to the London-based NGO Privacy International, the United States is already an “endemic” surveillance society. For more on Privacy International, please visit their website: http://www.privacyinternational.org/
Many of you also accused me a painting Obama as a Fascist. My comparisons actually ran across the political spectrum. They were from the right, the left and the political center. I do not want another Tony Blair who incidentally also shares with Obama, a late in life religious conversion. Nor is it fair to state that by arguing against Obama, I am arguing for Clinton. It is not a zero-sum game for me. I understand that for you it is a zero-sum game. I believe that there are other options.
I also recognize that Canetti is a difficult subject to cover in the limited time and space I have. There is also a socio-biological component to his argument that I did not cover. The baiting crowd arises from humanity’s long history of hunting in packs. To some extent it is in our genes (today is Charles Darwin’s birthday, so Happy Birthday Charles!). We are nothing more than a third species of chimpanzee. Along with our cousins, chimpanzees and bonobos, we have long hunted in groups or packs. Genocide is a human trait. We do it and chimpanzees do it. Bonobos do not but they have sex all the live long day so who has time for a killing, metaphorically or otherwise your own kind if you are a bonobo. Some of your reactions were emotions typical of a baiting crowd.
On to the responses:
To Jo Ann who asked: Have you contributed any money or campaigned for either one of them?
I gave to Edwards or PACs that support Edwards. I have also given modest amounts ($50 or less) to Dodd, Biden, Gravel and Green Party candidate Cynthia McKinney. I did volunteer for the Edwards campaign and he remains my choice for President. I will support Clinton with reservations and on Obama, probably not. But I do try to be objective on him. I see both good and bad though I primarily write about the bad because people refuse to even admit the possibility that he has any flaws. I wrote on his faith. I thought that would be a major issue for me but as I examined his faith, I found no serious objection to his faith. The only concern I still have is why as an adult he became a Christian since adult conversions are rare. George W. Bush had one though his was a response to his abuse of alcohol. And yes, I realize that Bush’s faith and Obama’s faith are far different. Still I cannot help but wonder if Obama’s faith was an act of political calculation. To have a political career in the United States as an atheist is perhaps impossible and Obama clearly has had long-standing political ambitions. His motives I question, his faith not so much though I find anyone with such a public faith to be clearly and utterly delusional. Private faiths, such as the Methodist faith of Mrs. Clinton, not so much. Read John Wellesley and you can understand that it is as much about good works as anything else.
And you also failed to read my posts accurately. I never compared Obama to Shi’ites. Nor did I suggest Obama supporters are global warming deniers. What I said that other examples of a lynching include what the right has done to Al Gore. The other example I gave is the lynching of John McCain by conservatives over their free speech arguments (McCain-Feingold). I also brought up the lynching of John Edwards over a haircut and the Lawrence O’Donnell and Guy Saperstein attacks on the Huffington Post. Please read with greater diligence.
I am basing my observations of cult-like behaviour of Obama supporters with empirical evidence. Throwing one’s panties at Obama is a sign of a cult follower. So was the comment that all Hispanics are evil. It’s the either your are with us or against us argument that is so prevalent in cults. To respond that Obama haters are a cult simply because we bring up flaws is a schoolyard taunt.
I have had numerous conversations with Obama supporters and not one has been able to give me a concrete substantive reason why they like Obama. Their reasons of support run like this: “He’s going to change the country by ending the partisan divide,” or “He stands for change.” They never cite policy positions. Not one Obama supporter has suggested to me why his health care policy is better than Hillary’s. On this blog, the positions are more erudite but out there the positions are more emotive than reasoned.
You were rather prolific in your responses. You also brought up immigration reform. I do not deny that Obama will work for comprehensive immigration reform. I noted that he has the order wrong. For Hispanics, and I am a Hispanic, the preferred order is green card first then licenses.
To Little Mickey who wrote: And this is Obama's fault how, exactly? Because he doesn't dial his power to inspire down to imperceptable levels?
Because he manages to rouse and stir the unwashed masses into actually wanting to take part in the democratic process?
Your posts don't read like someone who is a rational, free-thinking, skeptic. Your posts sound like they are written by someone who is afraid of something. And I wish you'd just come out and say what it is already.
Obama is using language that others have used before and those who use that language have in the past posed anti-democratic threats. You may think that the argument is supercilious but I do not. Words matter. Obama strikes me potentially as another Richard Nixon and I am not alone in that assessment. Paul Krugman seems to agree.
And I have noted what I am afraid of. Mob rule is a bit of a stretch but I have asked twice that the readership look at Hamilton Nine and Madison Ten from the Federalist Papers and not one response seems to indicate that that part of my argument was been heeded. This is your country, not mine. I have three passports. I can live anywhere. You most likely cannot and your Founding Fathers are both brilliant observers and insightful prognosticators. You should heed their warnings. Tyranny has many cloaks.
thaddeusphoenix got it right when he noted: So... all that to say he's a rabble rouser. He's appealing to emotion more than intellect. And people who appeal to emotion to rouse the rabble (using the 'baiting' method), turn out to be bad people who do bad things. BTW I will always vote on issues, issue priority, electable, ability to perform in office, and my gut.
I appreciate your post because you make me question my gut, which is really the only thing that is separating the two candidates for me right now.
Thanks! If I have a complaint about Americans and the way they make political choices is that they have for too long made important decisions on style rather than substance. My litany of losers, that is candidates that I have supported in the past, include Paul Simon, Paul Tsongas, Bill Bradley and now John Edwards. The Democratic Party went for the more charismatic Michael Dukakis (okay this one I really don’t get), Bill Clinton, Al Gore (I was torn admittedly) and now Barack Obama. Charisma is how we got Reagan though it was also how we got Kennedy. Still I am not that big a fan of JFK (I don’t dislike him either) because his Presidency was cut short by an assassin’s bullet so his accomplishments were relatively few and his failures more than one. It is fair to say that had Kennedy lived longer, his Presidency might have had more long-lasting impact. But it was LBJ who brought forth both the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Voting Rights Act of 1965 knowing full-well that by doing so, he was surrendering the South to the GOP for quite some time to come. Would have Kennedy struck the same bargain? We will never know. LBJ also enacted the Great Society and yet he was undone by following a policy that JFK had already embarked upon: Vietnam. JFK’s role in Vietnam is overlooked by many, including the Kennedys.
Isabella Clark thinks that Frankly, this kind of argument is impossible to respond to. It is as if Lemos is trying out some form of rhetorical mental gymnastics to see where it ends up. I think he is playing a lethal game where his pleasure is to create fear and identify "bad" things. The reward is in solidifying a sense of himself that is insightful and heroic.
Why are we even trying to have a dialogue with this foolishness? It is sloppy reasoning, topped with a big schmear of self importance. It is as if Lemos walked into the middle of a fervent discussion of some subject of which he was unfamiliar. Instead of joining the discussion he remains, like many pundits, outside the circle, criticizing the people in fervent activity, rather than admitting that he feels left out.
Impossible for you perhaps, but not for others. Here is what someone else thought on another blog where my posts were cited. *and “latent”? are you sure you understand Lemos’ post? 0r are you just a shill for the faux-one? please understand, its very sad when you can’t ever get a straight response from these robots — it would behoove y’all to come up with just 1 (one) positive actual thing barry o has actually accomplished (voting “present” doesn’t count) in his career or at all (getting into and graduating law school doesn’t count — we’ve all done that — and actually practiced law to boot!). maybe if you did, those of us who distrust the faux one and his followers might not distrust y’all so much.
the Lemos post was pretty brilliant. but still, lambert, your post “Obama Stump Speech Strategy Of Conciliation Considered Harmful” in late dec is still the gold standard explaining what’s wrong with the picture*
Or this one from Susan on our own thread:
Thanks to Norm for posting this, and Charles for writing it. You've addressed many of the aspects of this Obama-adoration that have bothered me, in an interesting way. I'll peruse your links as well. I supported Edwards and haven't been real excited about either of the other two since he dropped out-- but Obama's Super Tuesday speech bugged me in a way I wasn't able to quite identify, and this has helped a lot. Thanks!
So some beg to differ. And as for being left out. I don’t join cults. I am willing to die for my principles. I will be making my third trip to the Sudan and Tchad within the month, so I do take risks. And certainly I am willing to risk damage to my reputation in the near-term because I know that I am right in how I am assessing Elias Canetti. Read Canetti if you got a month or two. Or again, read something more accessible like the Federalist Papers. I offer food for thought but I will not spoon feed you either. You need to do your own work. It that sounds like an admonishment, it is.
Reed77’s response to me “the Dear Bigot letter” is now circulating elsewhere on how I hit a nerve. If am hitting nerves, then I am doing something right. And when others like Paul Krugman, Martin Lewis, and James Jarvis are picking up on the same trends, then I think Isabella you got a problem, a metaphorical one. I am not a lone dissenter but rather just one of many disparate voices arguing the same thing.
As for the Alice Palmer case. You asked me why the petitions that were struck were the signatures were those of the homeless and the poor. It is self-evident because that is who lives in that district on the South Side of Chicago. I have made the case that the homeless are disenfranchised in the United States because they cannot abide the laws since they lack a permanent address. It is a problem. The solution is a national voter identity card but in the United States it is the left, ironically, that is largely opposed to the idea. I am not. I have one in Colombia. I already knew the answer to my query when I posed it yet no one responded with that idea.
* Adam raised this point: I have no earthy clue why you want to hold against someone that he inspires people. I frankly find it sick that when there is finally someone who inspires people with something other than cynicism, it strikes our political culture "vague" and "flowery".*
It is not that he inspires people, it is how he is inspiring people and how much. It is style over substance. And the language he is using mirrors that of many from the past. Ronald Reagan in 1980 stated that the United States had “a rendez-vous with destiny.” In 2008, Obama offers us “a date with destiny.” Thanks, I am already married or domestic partnered because that is what the system will allow me. Funny, how gay marriage in my native Colombia is now working its way through the Colombian Congress. That Colombia will have gay marriage before the United States will speaks volumes. Hell, Spain and Uruguay already have gay marriage. Accomplishments inspire me, flowery rhetoric not so much. Policy dictates my choices, not emotion. But I am weird in that respect, I care to read to policy pronouncements.
Murdock brought up some interesting points that perhaps need further clarification: Point One: But I respectfully disagree with their conclusions. Some of the readership also think that by questioning Obama’s credentials, I am arguing for Clinton." - Charles you have enough degrees to understand this: There are 2 candidates. If you argue against one and favor the other, your are..
I covered this already but I will elaborate some more. It is not a zero-sum game for me. Both candidates can lose in my mind. I can vote for John McCain if I vote my own narrow economic self-interest, something that I have never done nor am I likely to do. I can also go Green Party and support Cynthia McKinney or I can write-in John Edwards (probably what I will do). For you this election is a zero-sum game. For me, it ain’t. There are more choices than Clinton or Obama. You chose to buy into the two party system and fail to consider other options. As long as you continue to do that, you will, in effect, have no choice at all. I might argue that both parties are now effectively polarized and that is probably in the short-term not good but in the long-term not bad. We need more voices expressed than these two not so grand coalitions. There is a game theory component as to why this is but it is beyond the scope of this post.
Point Two: Charles estimation of the size of the baiting crowd is also highly suggestive (in a negative way). Why doesn't he want to size the group
I noted that Obama has elements of both a reversal crowd and a baiting crowd. I would think and hope that most Obama supporters are reversalists but some are clearly baiters. I am afraid I have no idea how large the baiting crowd is other than it is large. Your guess is as good as mine. Yours may even be better because I now largely avoid Obama supporters. Reasoning with them is beyond the possible. Another trait of a baiting crowd.
Red Seven writes: Questions that Charles and those that see Obama's followers as "Cult-Like". Do you see there being such a thing as a valid and rational "movement"? Isn't some emotional group dynamic of all movements? Are they by definition Cults?
True, all group dynamics involve some element of emotion. I noted it is that it is not that Obama makes emotive appeals because all politicians do as much as that he does so much of it. It is the level and the intensity that makes the distinction. Again there is a reversal element in Obama but there is also a very pronounced baiting element that is largely absent from other campaigns. The reversal emotion is throw the bums out; the baiting one is it is now or never and it is only us. That makes Obama more of a mass movement than a political campaign. And his movement has some millenarian overtones. That worries me. Again read the Federalist Papers.
* Tim brought up a lot of points in his comments but it is too long to reprint in full so I will cut and paste the main charge: You worry about Obama's heavy-on-inspirational tenor and you hear Peron, Franco, and Trujillo! But without identifying other characteristics that go into the kind of leader who constructs a cult of personality, your comparisons say more about you than Obama. Has Obama distorted facts (any more than usual in a political campaign) to vilify his opponents? No - amazingly, to my knowledge neither Clinton nor Obama has aired a single negative advertisement directed towards their opponents (or so claimed Paul Begala, a Clintonite, on Super Tuesday.) Is there any sense that Obama's election would signal some kind of extra-legal activities that accompany the establishment of a cult of personality? Only in your mind, I'm afraid.*
Obama had Carville and Begala removed from CNN in January. Silencing critics is in my mind though perhaps not yours a red flag. If now before he is entrusted with the Presidency, he takes to silencing critics how then how might he respond when he is President? That is what Krugman was referring to with his comments on Nixonland. Obama is behaving a lot like Richard Nixon. I have made that point already. Indeed, I raise that point in the Crossing the Mara:
http://onegoodmove.org/1gm/1gmarchive/2008/02/crossing_the_ma.html#more
Here are some links that cover the CNN dispute:
http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/archives/14355.html
Krugman also noted that the attacks, while emanating from both camps, have primarily come from the Obama camp. Especially the more vicious ones. I don’t disagree. I think Paul Krugman is right. And of course, Paul Krugman is being lynched today here and elsewhere. Canetti is right when he notes that blind men are at the blindest when they think they can suddenly see. You see what you want to see. Bring up flaws of Mrs. Clinton and you will get responses arguing points. Bring up flaws of Obama and you are called a bigot.
I would dearly love to respond to more comments but the above pretty much cover the main criticisms of my argument as to why Canetti is right about the nature of crowds. Today is Charles Darwin’s birthday, the 199th anniversary of his birth, and I would have loved to have written a post about one of the most influential thinkers in the history of mankind, but alas I do not have the time because these posts do take time and while I think the ideas that I am expressing do matter because I clearly see a danger, I am forlorn in not being able to address other topics of relevant discussion because my time has been spent on discussing the social phenomenon that is Obama. I cannot devote this much time to Obama any longer. I have made my warnings clear. I have asked you to read Canetti if possible or at least to read the Federalist Papers. Another suggestion is to look at the work of Thomas Paine, perhaps the greatest American (though British born) thinker of his time. I urge this because you will find that both the right and the left and everyone in between claim Paine as one of theirs. Ronald Reagan was fond of quoting Paine. How Paine is quoted in this campaign is something to which you should pay attention.
My boyfriend is wont of telling me that I know the United States well but I do not know Americans at all. I think he is right. I have constantly misjudged the American propensity to vote for style over substance. You are doing it again.
Celebrate Darwin by looking at his work:
http://darwin-online.org.uk/ http://www.public.coe.edu/departments/Biology/darwin_bio.html
For more on human traits as they compared to our close cousins, I suggest Jared Diamond’s work, The Third Chimpanzee. It can be read in an afternoon. But here are some links that cover the work: http://www.powells.com/cgi-bin/biblio?inkey=7-9780060984038-7 http://www.booktalk.org/the-third-chimpanzee.php http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Third_Chimpanzee
I also want to lament the passing of a dear friend, Tom Lantos. Tom and I worked together over the years on many human rights and global poverty issues. On both Rwanda and Darfur, Tom Lantos was a powerful voice for those who do not have a voice. My work continues because it is the also the work of Tom Lantos. I hope you make his work yours as well.
Let me also inform the readership that I contribute to this blog exclusively at the discretion of Norm. I email him the pieces and he reads them. He has made suggestions and based on that I have made one major edit. I will not suggest that Norm agrees with me entirely but at a minimum I think he finds them thought-provoking and I hope well-reasoned. He posts them, not I. We also speak frequently by phone to go over possible contributions that I can make. I would like to cover other topics but unfortunately right now the Obama issue is the only issue I have tackled for lack of time. Global poverty is my main issue. And unlike Obama, I do not silence my critics, so the turn is now yours.
Comments
this may sound picky - but there is apparently a missing tag in there some where. it seems like it needs a couple of paragraph endings and italics closed. that might make it easier to get through.
in the meantime, i will copy it to my word processor, reformat, and read offline.
we agree that the posts are thought provoking.. i'm going to make some popcorn and set the page to reload every 2 minutes :-)
peace
This whole Charles Lemos saga reminds me a lot of the Jon Katz saga on /. eons ago. (all the geeks in the house please stand up)
Charles, I really want to believe deep down that you have an argument to make and might even have some good ideas, but its really hard to cut through the massive wall of self importance you have. A tip on dealing with almost anyone, not even just Americans: leave your ego aside and argue your point, leave your elitism at home, it turns people off.
I can't help to think that some of that tone comes from the air of self importance induced by receiving so many comments and traffic after your posts. Those spikes are there only because a large audience already existed on 1GM and we feel that it's suddenly been invaded by posts and comments that go against what we've read to this point.
A challenge to you Charles. Leave the crutch of 1GM and go start your own political commentary site, or poverty aid site or whatever... I think you will find that you will have to work on your tone and delivery to gather much of a following.
Oh and if you aren't familiar with Jon Katz, I won't spoon feed you, go research it.
I won't even go into arguing the points made because there really isn't much point. You are starting from such a ridiculous base that all Obama supporters are nuts that it leaves nowhere to go. That's ok though, because we think you are nuts too, so call us even.
PS. I recommend reading The Transparent Society for another take on your privacy concerns. The main premise being that your privacy is already gone, but only visible to those with power. Our only hope is to open everything. I tend to agree, which is yet another reason I support Obama and his goals of running a more transparent administration, oh wait, but no, I'm actually a supporter because I think he's cute.
Let me make this perfectly clear. I alone decide what gets posted here. I read guest posts before they appear, and while I may not agree with everything said I do think they are worthwhile. It is certainly your choice to disagree with what I choose, but It is my blog and I'll do whatever I damn well please. If you don't like a particular topic, skip over it. If you're unable to deal with it then find somewhere else to spend your time. I welcome views that are at odds with my own, but I make the decisions here. Perhaps you are the one that should start a blog, or if you already have one read your own posts I'm sure you'll find them less upsetting.
While I don't agree with the writer that Obama is a potential authoritarian, I would like to point out that he is potentially right that progressives are capable of authoritarianism as much as the left. For example the progressive movement of the past century was lead by president Woodrow Wilson. Wilson brought a lot of positive reform that were wanted by most progressives for 30 years, but he was also the president responsible for the Sedition Acts that imprisoned people for criticizing the government as well as rampant abuse of government power unchecked by congress that was to last to the end of his presidency . The point is, progressives and liberals can be just as dangerous as the fanatics on the right, so we must be wary of anyone who offers real change because sometimes bringing positive change means doing evil too.
Charles,
You keep referring to Obama's conversion, saying it was late in his life. He converted in his 20s, and he is now 46 years old. Its safe to say that he has been a Christian half of his life. If he lives the same years as the average American, he will have converted in the first third of his life. So I don't think it's that big of an issue. But I understand where it might bother an atheist, because I see the parallels between many Obama supporters and the religious mob.
Also, I would compare Obama to Reagan before I'd compare him to Nixon. I've read numerous articles comparing HILLARY to Nixon, and frankly that comparison makes more sense to me.
You say Obama "silenced" Carville and Begala on CNN. Well, I contend that CNN is supposed to be a news service, and should remain neutral. Obama's campaign has not limited their speech, they are more than free to write articles and express their opinions online or in public. But not behind the CNN desk!
They would be perfect for the opinion commentary shows, providing CNN's ticker read something like:
James Carville Clinton campaign spokesperson
I think there is a clear distinction that should be made.
Norm, of course you are god here, I would never argue otherwise. You can post whatever you like.
I am simply pointing out that the attention Charles gets is because there is already a large audience here, an audience that was built by your previous content, not his current ramblings.
If this blog evolves to nothing but posts by Charles I suspect you WILL see your readership go down. That is of course your choice, and your prerogative.
There are a lot of people here that really like Obama. They are upset that I don't share their enthusiasm. It is an emotional issue for them. The content here is not much different than it ever has been expect for that fact. I realize that when you've been reading a blog for a long time and the author of blog sounds like he is channeling your thoughts it feels good. You start feeling like it's your blog. You identify with it, and then one day he says something you disagree with and it's upsetting. Notwithstanding the posts I've allowed Charles to make. I've expressed a very similar view to his. He is little bit edgier than I am, but I agree with the broad strokes of what he writes. Our emphasis is also different. Perhaps with me doing what you call Obama-bashing together with his offerings it was a little too much for some. I understand. For the six years I've been doing this I've always just posted whatever I found of interest that day. I'm human, I sometimes go off on a tangent. Some have complained about too many atheist posts for example, they wanted more politics, but I'm not going to start now trying to please those who find onegoodmove a place they like to visit. I'm going to continue as I always have, posting what I find interesting. If our interests continue to dovetail you'll continue to visit, If they diverge too far you'll leave. There you go, and then you're there.
Charles: First things first. I feel I owe you an apology for expressing frustration at the fact that you did not respond to a number of criticisms people formulated before pursuing what struck me as yet another bizarre theory. Clearly, this was not fair or wholly charitable of me, and I appreciate your wholly admirable effort here to engage with our worries, arguments, and objections. (Given the number of responses on this and previous posts, I do not expect you to answer all our comments to this post).
That said, on the issues, this posting strikes me as not much more cogent or even coherent than the others. Let's begin with your wildest, most outlandish claim:
"I am basing my observations of cult-like behaviour of Obama supporters with empirical evidence. Throwing one’s panties at Obama is a sign of a cult follower."
What? I've had panties thrown at me, and just let me say, the world would be a sad place indeed if you needed to be a cult member for that to happen!
More seriously, this is not 'empirical evidence', it is the bare assertion that this should some how count as cult behavior, with no explanation why throwing panties is indicative of cult behavior. Presumably, that issue would be settled either (a.) if all and only cult members threw panties at people they like, (b.) if throwing panties bears a resemblance to other characteristic cultlike behavior, even if non-cult members do throw panties in some non-characteristic way, (c.) if throwing panties causes mob-like behavior, (d.) there is a distinctive way all cult members throw panties, even if other groups also share that trait.
I take this to be a reductio ad absurdum. It is symptomatic of a much deeper problem: your bizarre idea about what counts as "evidence". Usually when someone wants to prove a point, they cite evidence for this. While you provide links aplenty for your unusual digressions on irrelevant issues, or at best--as on the Palmer article--evidence with nothing even near supporting the ambitious scope of your claims, your most controversial empirical claims go unsupported (say, about mob behavior), and the tenuous steps between the stages of your argument simply go unsupported and unexplained (say, on how to related voting petitions to homelessness). I'm sorry, but that's not how it's supposed to work. Relatedly, science is not magic; you can't just appeal to some fact--or vaguely allude to an entire empirical discipline like socio-biology--you have to explain how it helps your argument: otherwise it is not empirical evidence because it is not evidence of any kind. Empirical evidence is derived from systematic and controlled observation of well delineated phenomenon, not passing notice.
"Obama is using language that others have used before and those who use that language have in the past posed anti-democratic threats...Paul Krugman seems to agree."
For instance? What kind of language? And on what occasions? (Again, this is not evidence because it is not a systematic and controlled observation of experience or data, but a gut impression that you simply don't justify or explain). Krugman, as is by now obvious, does not like Obama: can you provide the link where he accuses him of "anti-democratic" tendencies?
Likewise:
"Mob rule is a bit of a stretch but I have asked twice that the readership look at Hamilton Nine and Madison Ten from the Federalist Papers and not one response seems to indicate that that part of my argument was been heeded."
Yes, Charles, I have read these. And again, a vague allusion to a fact, or text, does not help. Surely the Federalist said a lot about mob-rule. You have said nothing about why their diagnosis would be specifically applicable to Obama.
You also said: "Many of you also accused me a painting Obama as a Fascist...Nor am I accusing him of being a totalitarian ruler in waiting, rather that he has the potential for authoritarianism."
It is not clear what you see the difference totalitarian and authoritarianism to be (although the vague allusion to Nixon and Reagan kind of helps). But in any case, I said you made an illegitimate analogy between Obama and a number of dictators (some of whom were fascist), which is exactly what you did. The point of my argument (and that of many others) was the mere fact of inspiring crowds does not provide any basis whatsoever for inferring "authoritarian" (or totalitarian) tendencies, and you offer no argument or evidence to support that claim but your own vague misgivings about what Obama reminds you of, and how his supporters make you feel. Moreover, as a stylistic issue, selecting some of the most controversial figures possible to make that unfounded and unmotivated analogy was plainly incendiary, independently of whatever your intentions were in appeal to dictators from "both the Right and the Left. (This is itself yet another distortion: the problem wasn't whether the dictators you mention were from the right or the left but that all of your examples were of dictators. Not all inspiration leads to authoritarianism: surely we agree on that. But just as surely you would need to explain why the inspiration created by Obama supports valid comparison to other, more pernicious kinds. This is exactly what your argument fails to accomplish).
On Palmer: "It is self-evident because that is who lives in that district on the South Side of Chicago."
Surely a lot of other people than the homeless live in South Side Chicago. And besides, this is an empirical claim--who signed the petition?--not something that can be settled by appeal to "self-evidence". You do not address at all Joann's obvious objection that the petition's could have simply been forged: merely because there were signatures does not mean they were authentic.
Norm: "They are upset that I don't share their enthusiasm. It is an emotional issue for them."
I don't give a damn whether or not you share my enthusiasm (and I have never felt like you were channelling my "thoughts," although your John Stewart video about "vas deferens torture" came pretty close).
But--forgive me for asking Norm, because you have taken some needless shit lately--perhaps you are being a little defensive? Nic never asked you to agree, he just worried a little about what he (and others, including me) have regarded as a decline in analysis, and an inability to distinguish "vetting" based on facts and incendiary attacks based on "gut feelings".
Charles, I have made some comments on your posts but in all your responses I don't see you've taken any notice of them. In general I thought you were interpreting Obama's fairly standard rhetoric and behavior, and the pretty normal behavior of his supporters, as evidence of some mass-psychological pathology and that Canetti is antique as the social science on crowds goes, but you can go back and read what I've said if you care to. You've a long way to go to prove that a left and center-left group of millions of Democrats that largely likes the alternative candidates, that organizes itself in standard, conventional ways, and is drawn from a wide variety of backgrounds and perspectives, a group that has far more academics than that of any other campaign, is unusually or strikingly pathological in its mindset or behavior. The terms you use to describe Obama supporters are, on this blog, typically applied to the far right, and then half-seriously. In many ways the back-and-forth reminds me somewhat of the response to Jonah Goldberg's book Liberal Fascism. Goldberg makes some quite inflammatory claims about liberals, in a not very careful way. Then their angry response to his poorly argued claims is--guess what?--used as evidence that liberals are in fact fascists who refuse to debate these very serious claims in a civil manner. I don't condone the insults thrown at you at all, but it seems you don't have any clue what you've been accusing some of your readers of. I'm quite surprised that no one has pointed out how ad hominem the whole argument is--you're trying to undercut the case for Obama by attacking the motives and psychological state of the people making the case in favor.
I've always defended Norm's obvious right to post whatever he wants, without the whining from readers. Honestly, a lot of blogs have critical commenters, but none I know of has so much whining about what's linked and posted. And I have no idea why OGM has an obligation for some journalistic kind of balance. If it were to become a mainly anti-Obama blog for the next three months, it would still count as a progressive blog and a good one, too. Norm has nothing at all to apologize for or regret, now or in the past.
All that said, I think it might be worth something to state my view that these Lemos posts have been some of the more slipshod pieces of analysis I've seen on onegoodmove. This is only worth pointing out becuse they weren't just links but long featured essays. Granted the reponse to them was even worse. But the hyperbole, the really spotty knowledge of the relevant sociology, the evidence-free assertions about Obama supporters, the extremely selective anecdotes about Obama's alleged authoritarianism, the irrelevant rambling about chimpanzee genocide, etc., the responding to people by categorizing their responses as pschyological pathologies. The best way to put it is it's pretty tacky. Maybe I'm wrong but I don't think that my evaluation is based on irrational Obama-like. There are things I hold much dearer than Obama that are bashed and ridiculed on this blog all the time but I have enough taste to be restrained about objections based on by own personal sensitivities. I've no doubt that it's just a temporary low and that even if OGM continues to be very critical of Obama this will continue to be a very high quality blog. And at any rate it's probably the case that two candidates have been well "vetted" in the past few days.
Well, as a longtime reader I guess I will chime in with my first comment ever in response to all the madness going on here. Warning...most of my thoughts right now are from my gut and well, probably emotional (I guess that makes me an Obama voter huh? Snark. Sorry.)
Anyway, my first response is to Norm's last post where he says to readers of any blog "then one day he says something you disagree with and it's upsetting". I guess my response to this is...it was one day, then the next and then the next and then the next and the next and on and on with nary a mention of Clinton, arguments for or against.
Now, I am an Obama voter and I'll get to that in a minute. When the first posts about Obama's credibility as a candidate popped up here I was excited to read them. I found them interesting and was even somewhat excited, to have my faith in voting for Obama tested. I feel even better about my vote after reading everything here. Like many others here, I guess I had wished for either 1) some commentary or posts on why Clinton is a better choice or 2) some kind of critical analyses of Clinton and the dangers she poses.
Obama is my choice. I was a Kucinich guy first of all. But once it became apparent that Clinton was going to be the nominee unless someone derailed her I moved to the Obama camp. At that point Edwards wasn't going to be the guy to get it done. Whatever needed to be done to stop Clinton.
Now, that's not to say that I even think Clinton is a bad presidential candidate. I think she's very good, a very good candidate at the absolute worst possible time. The way I look at it, and here's where my gut comes in to play, is that this country needs a break. We can't have another 4-8 years with a president where half the country hates them. Which is our starting point with a Clinton candidacy. She could win the general 50-49, but what good does that do? We're still here tomorrow getting nothing done because we have the same vitriol we have now just with everything in reverse.
I think everyone here reading and posting can say at least once they've heard someone from the right say "you know, I don't really agree with Obama on lots of things...but I like him". Personally, we can debate policy and who's plan this and that and who voted this way and that all day, but what we really need more than anything right is a leader where we can at least all say we like the guy. Obviously, I'm not an idiot, that's no way to spend your life voting. But right now, I think the country needs it. Hell, I need it! I can't argue anymore. I'm tired of it. With a Clinton presidency it would be one giant fight with the otherside constantly. At least Obama is a fresh start. Yeah, there are going to be plenty of fights...but at least maybe we'll get a break to al sit back and chill out for a bit after being enraged daily by something our current administration does. If any or all of Lemos' fears about Obama were to come true....I mean, how much worse off can we be than we are right now?
Lemos also says that his arguments against Obama are not meant to be for Clinton and he notes that "I believe that there are other options." Ok, am I an idiot...what are these other options? I mean, yeah, we can throw our vote away in protest on a candidate we like who's not going to win at this point, but what good does that do? I would have voted for Kucinich if my vote didn't matter. What are these other options? I'm really confused on that...McCain?
I don't know how many other people are looking at it this way too...but goal #1 in this election cycle is to get McCain/Bush world view OUT of the White House. We can argue the nuances of our progressive policies until we're ill...but isn't that the first goal? Get them...out, now. Like I said, Clinton could win...but nothing would rally the right to vote like a potential Clinton candidacy. With Obama, like I said, I think everyone here knows at least or has heard at least one Republican say....you know, I could vote for him. At the very least they would sit it out as disgusted as they are with their candidate.
Before I go, I guess I should explain my detest for Clinton. Up until the NH primary I wold have been a reluctant supporter of Clinton in a general election. But when she won in NH is all seemed wrong. It all fed into my worst fears about Clinton...that she really is as some people have said Bush-lite...Cheney in a pantsuit. I was reluctant to believe that before. First, n her speech after her NH win...she said that she "finally found her voice". I couldn't help but think....wha???? You've been running for president for almost two years and you just NOW "found your voice"? You have to be joking. Couple that with the fact that she changed her campaign signs from "ready to lead" to "ready for change" after exit poles in Iowa said voters wanted to change. She took Bill and Madeleine and that whole cast of characters of the stage and replaced them with a frat/sorority party after realizing how strong the youth vote came out in Iowa. For me....that confirmed to me that she would be a leader not with her own ideas but relied on focus groups and poles to lead. Obama has not changed from day one. I am tired of media controlling and planted questions and political games which is all you get from Clinton. You can't get into any policy discussion because you're constantly fighting her taking your quotes out of context as seen in the SC debate. It's like her whole campaign strategy has been to scour Obama transcripts and see if they can play gotcha. I'm tired of that crap and at least from what I can see, Obama seems above that. Before I get railed on, I know he's not...no one is, but at least for now...can we have a break and like someone for a bit? But hey...that's just my gut speaking...after the rush of throwing my panties at Obama.
Sorry...
I gotta lighten the mood here.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a6suYOwccuo&feature=related
hey, where can i get somma that?
"Paul Krugman seems to agree."
nuff said. Mr Krugman has seemed a bit on the paranoid side lately in my opinion.
I think Obama would be a fine President, but I like Hillary's health care package better.
How can anyone say he'll be another Nixon or Kennedy? Look at Reagan's oratory style and I'm sure we'd see similarities there as well - or with Jesse Jackson's speeches for that matter.
These are old standards he's singing, "chestnuts" if you will. There's nothing new there except that he's gotten people to believe in Obama, because he seems to genuinely believe his own rhetoric.
Too bad Edwards left, if only to keep these two focused on the real issues.
I feel I need to respond to a comment by Brett on the Obama campaign's removal of pundits from CNN. To begin with, it is well known that they were pro-Clinton because they were introduced as such. Two, there are pundits, like Lawrence O'Donnell for example, who are pro-Obama and you don't see Mrs. Clinton fighting to remove him from his duties. And three, these pundits were not delivering the "news" they were offering commentary which is far different. And the attack on Univision to boot. You don't silence critics. Big red flag.
And when one blogger has to suspend commenting on her blog because of attacks, then clearly something is amiss. And tonight, Ambassador Joe Wilson wrote a blog on the Huffington Post supporting Clinton as the better foreign policy candidate. Four pages of attacks last I checked. Comments were either either snide, oh he wants to be Secretary of State or this tasteless little diddy that said he should go home to his bitch, write a book and shut the fuck up. What country am I in? I don't recognize it. If this is unity, what does disunity look like?
Before Iowa, I paid little attention to Obama but since then red flags galore. And at every opportunity, he throws the progressive agenda under a bus. From health care to energy to gun control. On immigration, he hasn't a clue. Foreign policy, don't get me started. But again you are deciding to go for style over substance. Again.
And once more, I never said ALL Obama supporters were baiters, I said a portion thereof. It is rather exasperating to have to repeat this again and again.
And to dendeblogger, I actually have read your comments on various threads yours quite a bit. I just replied to the ones with which I took the most exception. In this sense, an omission more meant fair enough.
I am sorry. I will read the comments but I prefer to make other contributions to this blog and not dwell on Obama. I have been wanting to write a piece on what oil companies are doing with all that cash but not a chance. Darwin's birthday came and went. Tom Lantos died. There is life beyond Obama. We need to move on. Only time will tell if I am right. We will see what an Obama Presidency brings.
Charles
Thanks for responding to my arguments Charles. Unfortunally I still disagree with the counter arguments for my points. They have no merit because they are not applicable or are undefined.
Regarding the third candidate vote... The CURRENT system mathematically and in practise makes it impossible for more than 2 candidates to step forward. The opposition and huge cash barrier, superdelegates and the rest of the system further kill any other options then the two dominant parties to succeed. The zero-sum game is not applicable. It could be valid if either Obama or Hillary actually does reform the system as they claim now. However, for this election we still play by the old zero-sum game. So there are still 2 candidates. If you argue against one and favor the other..your vouchering for one candidate only.
Charles, I agree with you that we don't know how large the baiting mob is for EITHER candidates. Thus, I could make the opposite arguement for Hillary. Similarly for the reversal crowd argument, it is speculation. Thus, give your other arguments more value and leave things we simply don't know out of your text OR state very clearly that this is pure speculation on your part. Either way, we learn little from it in this way.
This statement, among others, irritates me.
I wish this was a discussion of facts and policy statements, and not gymnastics that try to imply (but not say outright) that Obama is somehow secretly and uniquely dictatorial, based not on what he is saying or what he is doing, but largely on questionable interpretations of his style of oration and analysis of his fans! I personally find this unsatisfactory, and I think succinct criticism directly sourced to overt statements and actions would be far more beneficial to the discussion.
In terms of the usual Executive authoritarianism, I see no hard facts that show Obama to be exceptional - unless I missed some that were buried in the river of meandering dialogue that has been posted recently.
I want to see more criticism based on what Obama actually said and actually did, with a minimum of interpretive dance. And it needs to fit within the context of whether or not Obama would make a beneficial president compared to the other likely options; otherwise, it's a presentation of academic what-ifs.
It's a question mark in many areas, but Obama's policies on some things, such as government transparency, separation of church and state[1], and Internet Neutrality and media consolidation legislation for example, are very clear. Whereas such things in Hillary's case strike me as much more up in the air - or off the table completely.
Arguably, both candidates offer quantitatively similar compromises, but Obama's seem qualitatively more balanced, addressing a larger gamut of issues, committing to a larger number of small but significant improvements.
Hillary seems to only compromise on the most prominent issues (like healthcare) but I think that when it comes to any policy not directly on the radar, Hillary will put her mouth where the money[2] is. My judgement is that Obama is not as poised to do this... but then again, I may be wrong. The situation is complex.
So I can concede that a vote for Obama will be taking a risk. And, if you don't like what is sure to come from a vote for Hillary (attractive-sounding healthcare plan, but no definitive policies on separation of Church and State, the War in Iraq, Net Neutrality, etc etc) then go ahead and write-in for Edwards, and then there will be no hard decisions on your hands.
[1] "Democracy demands that the religiously motivated translate their concerns into universal, rather than religion-specific, values." obama.senate.gov/speech/060628-call_to_renewal/
[2] An example of interest: www.huffingtonpost.com/2007/10/17/defense-industry-embraces_n_68927.html
I also want to apologize to you, Charles, for giving you shit about not responding directly.
Obama has been a strange, heady phenomenon. He's tapped into something that, clearly, Americans have been starving for for decades.
I, and most everyone of a certain age, know that swift, red-hot intense fascinations tend to burn out rather quickly. Many of the young people who are so on fire today, will quickly become bored as the novelty of Obama fades. America is a young country and we don't have the luxury (and battle scars) of a thousand years of our own history to guide ourselves by. We're still learning.
I used to go to bed each night and believe that, no matter what, on the big issues, the issues that speak to our humanity, Americans would always do the right and honorable thing. And of course, that belief has been kidney-punched so much in the last 7 years that it was barely breathing.
I suspect it's the same for a lot of people. And I don't think any of us really knew what to do about it. There were times when I worried that we were just gonna let this whole thing slip right through our fingers. We desperately needed someone to step up and remind us to hope again. We need this renewal, this feeling of togetherness and community spirit. Even if it's only temporary.
Unlike you, I don't fear the "movement". Anything that jostles us out of our dozey complacency, and gives us a boost of energy that we need to properly address our peril is more than welcome!
This morning when I woke up, I switched on CNN and caught a blip of John Mccain slipping in a shot at Obama by saying (paraphrasing here from just-woken-up memory) that his (Mccain's) presidential aspirations weren't guided by feelings of being annointed as the right leader at the right time, and that he was coming from a place of humbleness...etc.
The ball seems to be squarely in Obama's court now. But I haven't entirely given up on Hillary. Everyone keeps forgetting that Michigan and Florida came out and voted for her in a landslide victory. She will just have to keep reminding us of that.
Is it as big of a red flag as removing the guy from MSNBC for saying that hillary is "pimping out" Chelsea? Or is that different somehow?
Can I also mention, that someone who "words matter", you certainly use "lynch" and "cult" in inflamitory and careless ways. If you hold obama's use of "destiny" against him, i'm damn sure to hold your blatant use of "lynch" against you.
To assume anyone here is any different is foolish and rude. Such language dismisses anyone who supports Obama and anything they have to say, which is why perhaps you aren't hearing anything we are saying about why those of us who support Obama do so.
Charles,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lawrence_O%27Donnell haha Looks like someone hacked his page.
I see your point about the difference between news and punditry. If CNN came out and said that Begala and Carville are no longer paid Clinton advisers then I have no problem with them participating in commentary/opinion shows. Has the Obama campaign ever paid Lawrence O'Donnell for his services? I doubt it.
How is the Carville/Begala "silencing" any different than what happened to MSNBC's David Shuster?
Oh, I never said you refer to Obama's entire group of supporters as baiters. I said I understand your uneasiness towards Obama, because MANY of Obama's supporters resemble a religious mob.(Like the group you say on Joe Wilson's Huffington Post article)
I can see where that bothers an atheist; Obama's delivery and cadence closely resembles a preacher. I'd like to know your thoughts on my statement about Obama's conversion.
You say it was late in life, but really he has lived half his life as a Christian. Moreover, if he lives 75 years, he'll spend 2/3 of his life as a Christian.
Can I agree with Everything Chris Posted above?
I'm tired. I'm weak. I'm sick of defending the Clintons. I'm tired of baby boomer politics. I'm tired of losing elections because there is no "perfect" candidate. This isn't a chemistry equasion. This is horseshoes and hand grenades.
It's easy to forget, since she was the only candidate on the ballot...
First off: thanks to Norm of providing this discussion, and Norm, you're right: it's your blog, not ours, and I think you're doing a pretty damned good job. You all can disagree with Norm, but if you're upset about the content, go to some other blog.
Charles, I must agree with several posts here that parts of your analysis are quite sloppy, but mainly it is this:
You link the behavior of the most ardent Obamaniacs to the characteristics of Obama himself. Indeed it is worrying what we see among these folks. But I'm not sure that Obama can really be blamed for this, and particularly in the midst of a hard-fought campaign, he's not apt to ask them to tone it down a notch, even if he himself might worry about their fandom (maybe it doesn't bother him, who knows?). Certainly his rhetoric "inspires" and he's getting a lot of support based on this. That doesn't mean he's bereft of policy ideas, or that all his policies are largely right-tilted. I think you make a good case for why Obamaniacs act as a baiting crowd (which is surely not the majority of Obama supporters), and why certain of Obama's rhetoric is worrisome. But you take this a step farther than sound analysis allows, which is extremely irritating.
While we're at it, allow me to pontificate on an extremely worrisome trend I see among Clinton supporters/defenders (which to Lemos' credit, he's not as bad about, although some of the tendencies are there, particularly in the comments thread here):
While in many cases (rightly) pointing out "empty" aspects of Obama's rhetoric, and (rightly) criticizing areas of his policy that seem either too concessional (healthcare) or demonstrating dangerous naivete (foreign policy), such "progressives" can't seem to see similar weaknesses in their own candidate on similarly crucial issues. Hillary abstained from the FISA vote yesterday, which I find extremely damning. Further, Hillary has ushered nothing but either tacit support or silence on media consolidation (she is cagey on Net Neutrality, and although it may be a stretch to link her views to Bill's signing of the 1996 Telecommunications Act, I have yet to see anything that indicates she would do otherwise). Hillary may be more "experienced" with foreign policy, but the fact is she is far more hawkish than she currently leads on. After all, her Iraq War vote was not merely about the intelligence to which she had access, it was a continuation of the policy approval for the eventual removal of Saddam that both her husband and Sandy Berger in particular favored, but did not have the political capital to act on. Also, her foreign policy team has not exactly expressed any desire for detante with Iran. Hillary has also been very cagey about domestic wiretaps, she opposes much of the ethics reforms Barack supports, and she has said nothing about executive orders or signing statements, that I know of. And Barack is the authoritarian?
Certainly Clinton does not "inspire" people in the same way as Barack, and Lemos is right in that Barack inspires baiting as well as reversal crowds (although he provides no evidence of Barack's actual intentions or personality traits here to indicate authoritarian tendencies to go along with this). However Clinton's "experience" and "battle-tested" traits are also things that worry me, because frankly she will utilize these to institute policies that I think as progressives we should ardently oppose. Barack may be more milquetoast on crucial issues, but I'm not sure I want slightly more progressive healthcare if I also get pro-corporate reforms on media and foreign policy.
Finally, let's face facts: the specifics of their policies will never survive the Congressional sausage factory intact. I think it's beyond meaningless to quibble over the areas of their healthcare plans where they differ. If Clinton is not the nominee, and she thinks mandates are necessary, then she can work to tack that on in the Senate or through allies in the House -- after all, she fancies herself a fighter and a technocrat, right? Would Barack really veto a bill that had what he wanted, but also mandates? I don't think so.
I was going to comment but Dende Blogger and Frenetic already said how I feel.
Dende Blogger said:
Frenetic said:
The best thing about Lemos' posts was reading the responses which provided more detail and information than the post itself.
As a person who a couple of weeks ago was completely undecided in the Clinton/Obama contest and who is now leaning towards Obama as result of reflection on many of the issues that have been flying around 1GM for the past two weeks, let me disabuse some Obama supporters of their hope.
Chris, as much as I would love to share your hope for a cooling of partisan vitriol, I am almost certain that it won't get any better (caveat below). The right-wing noise machine is as entrenched as ever. The Murdoch-controlled segment of the MSM is as powerful as ever and the what remains of other media outlets is weaker than before Bush took office. At TIME magazine a purportedly "liberal" columnist, Joe Klein, is unrepentantly spewing lies about the content of Telecom immunity bills. Bill Kristol, whose reputation should have been obliterated by being blatantly WRONG (over and over and over again) is offered a job at the NYT. On some of the issues where the Bush administration has most clearly broken the law, Congress has now essentially ratified their behavior. So what is my point? Ironically, there is some chance that McCain will run a half-decent campaign. He might actually avoid the worst of the smear tactics that we have seen from Rovian politics. But even if that happens (and I don't see it as likely) and Obama were to win in November, the destructive vitriol you've seen will be unleashed with a vengeance soon after Obama takes office.
The right-wing hate machine has been too richly rewarded for their divisive anti-democratic behavior to stop now. The cowardice and weakness of Congress, who took impeachment off the table, has now stamped the illegal and corrupt radicalism of the Bush administration as "just politics" and within the sphere of acceptability. George Bush and Dick Cheney will be characterized as merely divisive and unpopular, when they should be remembered as CRIMINALS.
I am beginning to think Obama is the right guy to run because I think he has the best chance of not only winning, but of winning big with long coattails. In order to restore some semblance of the democratic process in the US a strong Democratic majority will be needed, not only to overcome the GOP, but also the weak-kneed Democrats in Congress who have been cowtowing to a criminal president with a 33% approval rating and unbroken record of failure. If the president who frightens Diane Feinstein and Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid into repairing the damage done to our democracy is named Hillary Clinton, terrific. But I'm getting the feeling that Barack Obama has a better shot of achieving it.
LOL!
Ann Coulter said she'd vote for clinton before mccain. The religious right say they'll sit it out if Mccain runs. CPAC booed mccain, several times. Rush has started an anti Mccain diatribe. Hannity has started the same thing. All of these neo-cons are using the Rovian playbook. McCain is already being attacked by the "Rove" machine.
And if by half-decent, you mean supporting bush's policies (even those he used to disagree with, back in his maverick days) you're definition of decency is not my own.
I liked mccain in 2000 and up til about 2003. That mccain is long gone.
*Oops, sorry, I didn't realize you meant MCCain wouldn't use Rovain tactics... my bad :P
Hey Tim. I don't disagree about the right wing hate machine. But what I hoped I got across, but maybe you said it better...is that Obama is the candidate that could win big. He has the potential to win in a way where he can legitamately play the "mandate" card. And for awhile that would act as a buffer against the noise machine. We know a Clinton win could not in a million years be a 5-6-7 point victory. No way. And the right wing noise machine can dredge up EVERYTHING from the past. At least with Obama we can avoid that nonsense.
Do you people even watch CNN? Begala has been on every primary coverage panel in the last month. They were removed as commentators after they appeared repeatedly with no tag idenifying them as supporters of a candidate and (this is important) after a CLinton supporter asked a question at the republican debate. There was significant blowback from multiple sources.
Sure Obama complained, but wouldn't anyone?
How can anybody interpret this as Obama silencing critics, like a Nixon or totalitarian?
It's these enormous stretches of the truth to make spurious analogies that sound like a right wing think tank came up with them.
The Magnolia Electric Co.: Is it as big of a red flag as removing the guy from MSNBC for saying that hillary is "pimping out" Chelsea? Or is that different somehow?
And what of the mini brou-ha-ha that semi-erupted over the "snubbing" at the SOTU speech?
She was asked the next day, point blank, "Do you feel that you were snubbed?"
Instead of giving the correct and honest answer ("No. Of course not. We are both adults and and neither of us would ever DREAM of behaving so childishly..."), Hillary Rodham Clinton, the woman who wants to be a symbol forever for little girls to look up to and admire as the first female American president, smiled and said, "Well...all I can say is that my hand was extended in friendship last night, and it's still extended in friendship today."
She will exploit any situation and say or do anything she has to say or do to score cheap political points.
She is shameless. And shameless people are dangerous people.
as a (mostly) innocent bystander in this debate, i have to agree.however taken as a whole (posts and responses) i have to say i've found the whole thing very interesting and enlightening and even sometimes what's most important to me personally- amusing. and it's clear to me, at least, that mr. lemos' posts, while losing points with some on style and others on content, have been the catylist for the whole shebang, and he deserves a lot of credit for, if nothing else, pissing people off.
i too hope this does not mark a major turning point in blog structure and direction, but i can't believe this even needed to be said:
may i put my stamp of approval also on that little prophesy?
Post a comment