@ #1
How wrong are you? Let me count the ways… No, on second thought, I shall take the one piece of good advice you had in there (though not in the spirit it was meant) and not waste my life on that.
SCsays
Bill Moyers in his 4-18 show talks about that as well as CNN’s “Compassion Forum.” I hadn’t even heard about that one. Sounds almost surreal. From the transcript:
“BILL MOYERS: When the Pope arrived this week he brought a two-edged message for Americans. He praised us as a country where strong religious belief thrives in a pluralistic society, but he also warned against “the subtle influence of secularism.” This had some people scratching their heads, because a secular democracy – in which no religion is favored and all are tolerated – may be America’s greatest contribution to political science. Furthermore, religion and politics are now paraded so prominently in what’s called “the public square” that it can sometimes seem our long-standing constitutional prohibition against a religious test for office is threatened with de-facto nullification. Consider one of the highest rated news shows on cable television this week:
BROWN: Tonight, we bring you something different in this already extraordinary campaign year. We are calling it the Compassion Forum…
BILL MOYERS: The compassion forum on CNN was touted as an opportunity for the candidates to “discuss how their faith and moral convictions” might guide them as president of the United States.
BROWN: You said in an interview last year that you have actually felt the presence of the Holy Spirit on many occasions. Share some of those occasions with us.
MEACHAM: Do you believe God wants you to be president?
BROWN: If one of your daughters asked you, “Daddy, did God really create the world in six days?” What would you say?
MEACHAM: Senator, do you believe that God rewards or punishes people or nations in real time?
BILL MOYERS: If you don’t think those questions at least imply a religious test for office, try to imagine what would have happened if one of those candidates had answered, “Well, I find the concept of the supernatural rather shaky and the evidence for it insubstantial. To be honest, I’m agnostic. So let’s talk instead about how we’re going to find the money to rebuild our infrastructure.”
That candidate would be burned at the metaphorical equivalent of the heretic’s stake. So I have a suggestion for the next compassion forum. Turn the tables, and insist that the candidates get to quiz the moderators on how well they have read Martha Nussbaum’s new book: LIBERTY OF CONSCIENCE: IN DEFENSE OF AMERICA’S TRADITION OF RELIGIOUS EQUALITY.”…
Wow… in the fine tradition of creationist arguments, completely off topic for the thread, and packing in at least twice as many ad hominem attacks as assertions of fact.
I assume the outrage at the ABC debate on Weds extends to all media coverage of the race for the Democratic nomination including the unexamined Obama campaigns use of right-wing talking points http://www.theleftcoaster.com/archives/012366.php and the abdication of progressive political activism in place of hero-worship by the majority of so-called liberal bloggers as well as the usual suspects – Clinton’s attacks and a petty, mendacious MSM.
bernardasays
The site Shakesville has assembled a few of the misogynist attacks on Clinton.
You poor victim, gosee, led astray by confidence men. My heart breaks to see folks like you so gulled into believing lies.
Sadly, we have enough information to know that Expelled is founded on falsehoods and elides the truth. We know that it makes outrageous allegations and panders to the prejudices of the godly. We fear that its agenda serves those powerful men who have, in effect, enslaved you.
You can, of course, join us and fight back against this manifest evil. Or you can refuse this lifeline and tread water in an ocean of ignorance.
Yes. YES! Fire them all, clean sweep, start over, get these babbling idiots off my tv so I can watch it again! Get them out of the newspaper so I can read one again! ‘s what I’ve been saying when I’m not ranting about Expelled or the Bush admin. It’s what Glenn Greenwald’s been saying for half of forever. And after the debacle – I mean, debate – there seem to be a lot of folks in the actual media fed up, too. Finally, one flag pin question too many!
ice9says
Speaking of satire with Lincoln involved, here’s my fave:
I found it incredibly ironic that in the post you link to, purportedly demonstrating Obama’s continued use of right-wing tactics, the very first sentence accuses Obama supporters of “CDS” — Clinton Derangement Syndrome. This is, of course, cribbed directly from “BDS” — Bush Derangement Syndrome, one of the more deranged defenses the right wing used for Pres. Bush, wherein any criticism of Bush’s warmongering or systematic lawbreaking was dismissed as a petty personality-based attack (a clear case of projection, as petty personality-based attacks are the main way the right-wing judges politicians).
Then, later in the post, the author accuses Obama of both borderline racist and borderline sexist attacks against Clinton, while simultaneously accusing him of “despicable smear attacks against [Hillary and Bill] portraying them as race-baiters or racists.” These claims are just ridiculous — the last thing Obama would ever do is make racially charged attacks on Clinton, as he would immediately be branded as an angry black man and lose quite a bit of his white base (see: Jeremiah Wright). Furthermore, it doesn’t take an Obama-based smear attack to see the racism in Bill and Geraldine Ferraro’s comments. The ability to read malice in every Obama comment, while ignoring the glaring inappropriateness of Bill and Ferraro’s comments, makes me suspect that the author is suffering from a critical case of — wait for it — ODS.
Aaron Whitbysays
Rayzilla,
One of my favorite quotes in this campaign : “What this man has done, Barack Obama, is, he, for the first time I think, as a black leader in America, has come to the American people not as a victim, but rather as a leader.” From Obama backer Senator McCaskill in The Kansas City Star 3/20/08.
Look, I am no big fan of Clinton either but the blind faith put into Obama makes me ill, he’s a regular politician with a poor grasp of policy and the ability to talk out of both sides of his mouth with the best of them. If he’s the nominee I will support him wholeheartedly but as usual its the lesser of two evils not the angel vs the female devil and furthermore it’s frightening to watch liberal people junk their usual critical faculties where this man is concerned and buy into the media’s obsession over the new, the fresh and the attractive.
Rayzillasays
One of my favorite quotes in this campaign : “What this man has done, Barack Obama, is, he, for the first time I think, as a black leader in America, has come to the American people not as a victim, but rather as a leader.” From Obama backer Senator McCaskill in The Kansas City Star 3/20/08.
While maybe a bit of hyperbole (perhaps this isn’t the FIRST time), the quote is on the money. Whenever black people claim any type of victimhood, no matter how deserved (they were considered 3/5 of a person officially, and then unofficially until the 1960s at least), it scares the shit out of white people. Incidentally, this is the true “white guilt.” Typically, white guilt is defined as liberals who support programs like affirmative action out of a sense of guilt. In actuality, observing and taking means to correct historical wrongs, that still contribute to current socioeconomics, is a matter of a sense of justice, not guilt. The true guilt comes from those who try to shift accountability and blame the victim, or ignore the problem, to assuage their own feelings of guilt.
And re: Ferraro please compare to Obama himself “Mr. Obama has pointedly acknowledged that he benefits from his race, noting last year that a new white senator from Illinois would hardly have stirred comparable interest or intrigue.”
I’m sure you can see the difference between acknowledging that his race may have added a factor of novelty to his career, versus stating unequivocally that he would not be in the position he is in were he not a black man (especially considering he is the only black man to ever be in such a position — apparently all the other black men in the history of our country did not manage to parlay this clear advantage into a serious presidential bid).
BTW The CDS acronym dates to the 90’s.
I seriously doubt that. BDS was coined by Charles Krauthammer in 2003 here. Can you give a single example of the use of CDS prior to that?
This is far from an even-handed analysis. The way he pushes Bill’s Jesse Jackson comment under the rug is ridiculous. That comment was made for a single reason — to marginalize Obama as the black candidate. They did the same thing after Mississippi, the most racially polarizing vote to date, and Clinton folks continue to push the idea that Obama only attracts blacks and liberal elites. Apparently all those latte-sipping black folks in wyoming and Montana won Obama those states.
Also, the author brings up NAFTA — another example of Clinton’s Republican Lite maneuverings. Her campaign pushed the story that Obama secretly told Canada he wasn’t serious about being anti-NAFTA, when it fact it was her own campaign doing that (and doing essentially the same thing in Colombia).
So Obama’s opponents had fake signatures on their petitions, he called them on it, and they had to drop out of the race? Jesus Christ, he’s a power hungry madman!
Look, I am no big fan of Clinton either but the blind faith put into Obama makes me ill, he’s a regular politician with a poor grasp of policy and the ability to talk out of both sides of his mouth with the best of them. If he’s the nominee I will support him wholeheartedly but as usual its the lesser of two evils not the angel vs the female devil and furthermore it’s frightening to watch liberal people junk their usual critical faculties where this man is concerned and buy into the media’s obsession over the new, the fresh and the attractive.
I agree, there are many issues on which progressives may take… um, issue… with Obama. Personally, I dislike his religious pandering and wish that he had been as firmly against the Bush regime’s lawbreaking as somebody like Russ Feingold.
However, I cannot see any way in which a progressive can support Hillary with a clear conscience. She voted for the war, has refused to say it was a mistake, made statements that Bush’s War on Terra has made us safer. She showed the inability to learn from past mistakes, voting for the Kyl-Lieberman sabre-rattling with Iran. Maybe she is a monster — she also refused to vote against cluster bombs, which mostly kill civilians (children in particular). And foreign policy/Commander-in-Chief-iness is supposed to be one of the areas she has an advantage over Obama! I would certainly support Clinton in the general over McCain, but if that came to pass and California looked firmly blue, I would take my vote to the World Worker’s Party. In fact, I have already voted for both a woman and a black person in the general election — Monica Moorehead in 2000, in a state that was solidly Gore.
Naked Bunny with a Whipsays
“You should see it.”
He tried. Perhaps you missed the story somehow.
Aaron Whitbysays
Rayzilla,
You say that this quote is on the money. “What this man has done, Barack Obama, is, he, for the first time I think, as a black leader in America, has come to the American people not as a victim, but rather as a leader.” And continue ” Whenever black people claim any type of victimhood, no matter how deserved (they were considered 3/5 of a person officially, and then unofficially until the 1960s at least), it scares the shit out of white people. Incidentally, this is the true “white guilt.” Typically, white guilt is defined as liberals who support programs like affirmative action out of a sense of guilt. In actuality, observing and taking means to correct historical wrongs, that still contribute to current socioeconomics, is a matter of a sense of justice, not guilt. The true guilt comes from those who try to shift accountability and blame the victim, or ignore the problem, to assuage their own feelings of guilt.”
Well I’m sure that MLK, Jackie Robinson, Charles Hamilton Houston, Miles Davis, Charles Rangel, Jesse Jackson, Barbara Lee, Bill Cosby, Carol Mosely Braun and many others were/are presenting themselves as victims.
Justice = reparations; affirmative action = guilt posing as justice.
You say “I’m sure you can see the difference between acknowledging that his race may have added a factor of novelty to his career, versus stating unequivocally that he would not be in the position he is in were he not a black man (especially considering he is the only black man to ever be in such a position — apparently all the other black men in the history of our country did not manage to parlay this clear advantage into a serious presidential bid). ”
Well I’m sure you can’t see that they are similar ideas. As for your claim of Obama’s uniqueness, times have changed as Obama said in his big ‘race’ speech and if you don’t see that racist language (if not feeling and behavior) has generally been successfully banished from the mainstream (Pat Buchanan dishonorably excepted) as opposed to misogyny which is alive and well and if you’re not aware of the appeal of Obama’s color to many guilty white people (not a wholly bad thing though certainly not ‘post-racial’) then I can’t help you.
You “I seriously doubt that. BDS was coined by Charles Krauthammer in 2003 here. Can you give a single example of the use of CDS prior to that?”
I can’t find a link either way but if you think there was no CDS in the 90’s you clearly weren’t of age then.
OK so a lauded historian like Sean Wilentz is biased as he doesn’t agree with you while those who do are no doubt absolutely even-handed. Got it.
The Jesse Jackson comment. If you remember the week of the SC primary where Bill Clinton was called a racist all week for his fairy-tale comment re: press coverage of Obama and Iraq and then saw his wife spanked at the polls you might have a little sympathy for a bitter and stupid comment. Of course as the Clintons couch every word they say for the maximum effect, including stupid lies, this was no part of a master-plan in your view, but anyone who seriously thinks the Clintons are racists is an imbecile. Again as you don’t remember the 90’s you wouldn’t remember Hilary being pilloried for her call for America to follow the African tradition of raising children let alone the ’80’s when she was the first person in a position of power (in Arkansas still) to embrace and put into practice micro-credit as learnt from Mohammed Younnis and his Bangladeshi experience.
Re: Alice Palmer. Pleased to see that you’re ok with disenfranchising voters and pushing your mentor off the ticket with a legalistic ploy rather than putting your ideas to the voters. Guess you also think that the disenfranchisement of FL and MI is irrelevant.
All the things you accuse Clinton of Obama is equally guilty of from condoning Bush’s conduct of the war to supporting Cheney’s energy bill and the border fence. My whole point is that there has been a completely false narrative drawn up by the MSM that calls Obama a clean, unifying, inspirational figure who is somehow both progressive and centrist and will lead us into a golden new land of ethical politics while Clinton is an evil harridan who only attacks and has the nerve to suggest that the 90’s were more peaceful and prosperous than the Bush years.I think that this is a huge mistake by naive Democrats and that Obama is very vulnerable in the general , not because of Clinton who will be blamed if he loses, but because of his own tendencies and history. Here’s a post I agree with here about why Clinton is the better candidate. http://correntewire.com/why_hillary_still_gets_my_vote
Expelled was great!
You should see it.
It might stop you from wasting your life.
There are enough hate sites already.
If by “great” you mean a complete and systematic inversion of the truth, then yes, I can somewhat appreciate your meaning.
Haha, that was great.
gosee, that was a pretty good satire. Thanks!
I second that sentiment…
@ #1
How wrong are you? Let me count the ways… No, on second thought, I shall take the one piece of good advice you had in there (though not in the spirit it was meant) and not waste my life on that.
Bill Moyers in his 4-18 show talks about that as well as CNN’s “Compassion Forum.” I hadn’t even heard about that one. Sounds almost surreal. From the transcript:
“BILL MOYERS: When the Pope arrived this week he brought a two-edged message for Americans. He praised us as a country where strong religious belief thrives in a pluralistic society, but he also warned against “the subtle influence of secularism.” This had some people scratching their heads, because a secular democracy – in which no religion is favored and all are tolerated – may be America’s greatest contribution to political science. Furthermore, religion and politics are now paraded so prominently in what’s called “the public square” that it can sometimes seem our long-standing constitutional prohibition against a religious test for office is threatened with de-facto nullification. Consider one of the highest rated news shows on cable television this week:
BROWN: Tonight, we bring you something different in this already extraordinary campaign year. We are calling it the Compassion Forum…
BILL MOYERS: The compassion forum on CNN was touted as an opportunity for the candidates to “discuss how their faith and moral convictions” might guide them as president of the United States.
BROWN: You said in an interview last year that you have actually felt the presence of the Holy Spirit on many occasions. Share some of those occasions with us.
MEACHAM: Do you believe God wants you to be president?
BROWN: If one of your daughters asked you, “Daddy, did God really create the world in six days?” What would you say?
MEACHAM: Senator, do you believe that God rewards or punishes people or nations in real time?
BILL MOYERS: If you don’t think those questions at least imply a religious test for office, try to imagine what would have happened if one of those candidates had answered, “Well, I find the concept of the supernatural rather shaky and the evidence for it insubstantial. To be honest, I’m agnostic. So let’s talk instead about how we’re going to find the money to rebuild our infrastructure.”
That candidate would be burned at the metaphorical equivalent of the heretic’s stake. So I have a suggestion for the next compassion forum. Turn the tables, and insist that the candidates get to quiz the moderators on how well they have read Martha Nussbaum’s new book: LIBERTY OF CONSCIENCE: IN DEFENSE OF AMERICA’S TRADITION OF RELIGIOUS EQUALITY.”…
http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/04182008/watch2.html
Wow… in the fine tradition of creationist arguments, completely off topic for the thread, and packing in at least twice as many ad hominem attacks as assertions of fact.
Didn’t you hear? PZ isn’t allowed to see Expelled.
The last real journalist was Edward R Murrow. Since then we’ve had wannabees, none of them any good. The good reporters work for science magazines.
Speaking of Expelled, has anyone tried the new software Ben Stein’s Office 2008?
I assume the outrage at the ABC debate on Weds extends to all media coverage of the race for the Democratic nomination including the unexamined Obama campaigns use of right-wing talking points http://www.theleftcoaster.com/archives/012366.php and the abdication of progressive political activism in place of hero-worship by the majority of so-called liberal bloggers as well as the usual suspects – Clinton’s attacks and a petty, mendacious MSM.
The site Shakesville has assembled a few of the misogynist attacks on Clinton.
http://shakespearessister.blogspot.com/2008/04/hillary-sexism-watch-castrating-bitch.html
Y’know, my theology professor(3 mandatory theology classes :( ) is Robert Stephanopoulos, George Stephanopoulos’s father.
Just thought I’d share. :)
You poor victim, gosee, led astray by confidence men. My heart breaks to see folks like you so gulled into believing lies.
Sadly, we have enough information to know that Expelled is founded on falsehoods and elides the truth. We know that it makes outrageous allegations and panders to the prejudices of the godly. We fear that its agenda serves those powerful men who have, in effect, enslaved you.
You can, of course, join us and fight back against this manifest evil. Or you can refuse this lifeline and tread water in an ocean of ignorance.
Your choice.
Yes. YES! Fire them all, clean sweep, start over, get these babbling idiots off my tv so I can watch it again! Get them out of the newspaper so I can read one again! ‘s what I’ve been saying when I’m not ranting about Expelled or the Bush admin. It’s what Glenn Greenwald’s been saying for half of forever. And after the debacle – I mean, debate – there seem to be a lot of folks in the actual media fed up, too. Finally, one flag pin question too many!
Speaking of satire with Lincoln involved, here’s my fave:
http://www.norvig.com/Gettysburg/sld001.htm
ice
Aaron Whitby:
I found it incredibly ironic that in the post you link to, purportedly demonstrating Obama’s continued use of right-wing tactics, the very first sentence accuses Obama supporters of “CDS” — Clinton Derangement Syndrome. This is, of course, cribbed directly from “BDS” — Bush Derangement Syndrome, one of the more deranged defenses the right wing used for Pres. Bush, wherein any criticism of Bush’s warmongering or systematic lawbreaking was dismissed as a petty personality-based attack (a clear case of projection, as petty personality-based attacks are the main way the right-wing judges politicians).
Then, later in the post, the author accuses Obama of both borderline racist and borderline sexist attacks against Clinton, while simultaneously accusing him of “despicable smear attacks against [Hillary and Bill] portraying them as race-baiters or racists.” These claims are just ridiculous — the last thing Obama would ever do is make racially charged attacks on Clinton, as he would immediately be branded as an angry black man and lose quite a bit of his white base (see: Jeremiah Wright). Furthermore, it doesn’t take an Obama-based smear attack to see the racism in Bill and Geraldine Ferraro’s comments. The ability to read malice in every Obama comment, while ignoring the glaring inappropriateness of Bill and Ferraro’s comments, makes me suspect that the author is suffering from a critical case of — wait for it — ODS.
Rayzilla,
One of my favorite quotes in this campaign : “What this man has done, Barack Obama, is, he, for the first time I think, as a black leader in America, has come to the American people not as a victim, but rather as a leader.” From Obama backer Senator McCaskill in The Kansas City Star 3/20/08.
And re: Ferraro please compare to Obama himself “Mr. Obama has pointedly acknowledged that he benefits from his race, noting last year that a new white senator from Illinois would hardly have stirred comparable interest or intrigue.”
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/12/24/washington/24obama.html?_r=2&sq=obama%20third%20senator%20reconstruction&st=nyt&scp=10&pagewanted=all&oref=slogin&oref=slogin
BTW The CDS acronym dates to the 90’s.
Here are some other links for you to deny.
Sean Wilentz on the ‘race’ bs http://www.tnr.com/politics/story.html?id=aa0cd21b-0ff2-4329-88a1-69c6c268b304
Matt Gonzalez, Nader’s running mate and an unapologetic progressive http://www.beyondchron.org/articles/The_Obama_Craze_Count_Me_Out_5413.html
So you can research their actual legislative records yourself – http://thomas.loc.gov/
A little real and relevant history on Obama that never seems to get aired – http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/chi-070403obama-ballot,1,57567.story
For general intelligence (and PZ Myers has been linked to from there!) http://correntewire.com/
Look, I am no big fan of Clinton either but the blind faith put into Obama makes me ill, he’s a regular politician with a poor grasp of policy and the ability to talk out of both sides of his mouth with the best of them. If he’s the nominee I will support him wholeheartedly but as usual its the lesser of two evils not the angel vs the female devil and furthermore it’s frightening to watch liberal people junk their usual critical faculties where this man is concerned and buy into the media’s obsession over the new, the fresh and the attractive.
While maybe a bit of hyperbole (perhaps this isn’t the FIRST time), the quote is on the money. Whenever black people claim any type of victimhood, no matter how deserved (they were considered 3/5 of a person officially, and then unofficially until the 1960s at least), it scares the shit out of white people. Incidentally, this is the true “white guilt.” Typically, white guilt is defined as liberals who support programs like affirmative action out of a sense of guilt. In actuality, observing and taking means to correct historical wrongs, that still contribute to current socioeconomics, is a matter of a sense of justice, not guilt. The true guilt comes from those who try to shift accountability and blame the victim, or ignore the problem, to assuage their own feelings of guilt.
I’m sure you can see the difference between acknowledging that his race may have added a factor of novelty to his career, versus stating unequivocally that he would not be in the position he is in were he not a black man (especially considering he is the only black man to ever be in such a position — apparently all the other black men in the history of our country did not manage to parlay this clear advantage into a serious presidential bid).
I seriously doubt that. BDS was coined by Charles Krauthammer in 2003 here. Can you give a single example of the use of CDS prior to that?
This is far from an even-handed analysis. The way he pushes Bill’s Jesse Jackson comment under the rug is ridiculous. That comment was made for a single reason — to marginalize Obama as the black candidate. They did the same thing after Mississippi, the most racially polarizing vote to date, and Clinton folks continue to push the idea that Obama only attracts blacks and liberal elites. Apparently all those latte-sipping black folks in wyoming and Montana won Obama those states.
Also, the author brings up NAFTA — another example of Clinton’s Republican Lite maneuverings. Her campaign pushed the story that Obama secretly told Canada he wasn’t serious about being anti-NAFTA, when it fact it was her own campaign doing that (and doing essentially the same thing in Colombia).
So Obama’s opponents had fake signatures on their petitions, he called them on it, and they had to drop out of the race? Jesus Christ, he’s a power hungry madman!
I agree, there are many issues on which progressives may take… um, issue… with Obama. Personally, I dislike his religious pandering and wish that he had been as firmly against the Bush regime’s lawbreaking as somebody like Russ Feingold.
However, I cannot see any way in which a progressive can support Hillary with a clear conscience. She voted for the war, has refused to say it was a mistake, made statements that Bush’s War on Terra has made us safer. She showed the inability to learn from past mistakes, voting for the Kyl-Lieberman sabre-rattling with Iran. Maybe she is a monster — she also refused to vote against cluster bombs, which mostly kill civilians (children in particular). And foreign policy/Commander-in-Chief-iness is supposed to be one of the areas she has an advantage over Obama! I would certainly support Clinton in the general over McCain, but if that came to pass and California looked firmly blue, I would take my vote to the World Worker’s Party. In fact, I have already voted for both a woman and a black person in the general election — Monica Moorehead in 2000, in a state that was solidly Gore.
“You should see it.”
He tried. Perhaps you missed the story somehow.
Rayzilla,
You say that this quote is on the money. “What this man has done, Barack Obama, is, he, for the first time I think, as a black leader in America, has come to the American people not as a victim, but rather as a leader.” And continue ” Whenever black people claim any type of victimhood, no matter how deserved (they were considered 3/5 of a person officially, and then unofficially until the 1960s at least), it scares the shit out of white people. Incidentally, this is the true “white guilt.” Typically, white guilt is defined as liberals who support programs like affirmative action out of a sense of guilt. In actuality, observing and taking means to correct historical wrongs, that still contribute to current socioeconomics, is a matter of a sense of justice, not guilt. The true guilt comes from those who try to shift accountability and blame the victim, or ignore the problem, to assuage their own feelings of guilt.”
Well I’m sure that MLK, Jackie Robinson, Charles Hamilton Houston, Miles Davis, Charles Rangel, Jesse Jackson, Barbara Lee, Bill Cosby, Carol Mosely Braun and many others were/are presenting themselves as victims.
Justice = reparations; affirmative action = guilt posing as justice.
You say “I’m sure you can see the difference between acknowledging that his race may have added a factor of novelty to his career, versus stating unequivocally that he would not be in the position he is in were he not a black man (especially considering he is the only black man to ever be in such a position — apparently all the other black men in the history of our country did not manage to parlay this clear advantage into a serious presidential bid). ”
Well I’m sure you can’t see that they are similar ideas. As for your claim of Obama’s uniqueness, times have changed as Obama said in his big ‘race’ speech and if you don’t see that racist language (if not feeling and behavior) has generally been successfully banished from the mainstream (Pat Buchanan dishonorably excepted) as opposed to misogyny which is alive and well and if you’re not aware of the appeal of Obama’s color to many guilty white people (not a wholly bad thing though certainly not ‘post-racial’) then I can’t help you.
You “I seriously doubt that. BDS was coined by Charles Krauthammer in 2003 here. Can you give a single example of the use of CDS prior to that?”
I can’t find a link either way but if you think there was no CDS in the 90’s you clearly weren’t of age then.
OK so a lauded historian like Sean Wilentz is biased as he doesn’t agree with you while those who do are no doubt absolutely even-handed. Got it.
The Jesse Jackson comment. If you remember the week of the SC primary where Bill Clinton was called a racist all week for his fairy-tale comment re: press coverage of Obama and Iraq and then saw his wife spanked at the polls you might have a little sympathy for a bitter and stupid comment. Of course as the Clintons couch every word they say for the maximum effect, including stupid lies, this was no part of a master-plan in your view, but anyone who seriously thinks the Clintons are racists is an imbecile. Again as you don’t remember the 90’s you wouldn’t remember Hilary being pilloried for her call for America to follow the African tradition of raising children let alone the ’80’s when she was the first person in a position of power (in Arkansas still) to embrace and put into practice micro-credit as learnt from Mohammed Younnis and his Bangladeshi experience.
Re: Alice Palmer. Pleased to see that you’re ok with disenfranchising voters and pushing your mentor off the ticket with a legalistic ploy rather than putting your ideas to the voters. Guess you also think that the disenfranchisement of FL and MI is irrelevant.
All the things you accuse Clinton of Obama is equally guilty of from condoning Bush’s conduct of the war to supporting Cheney’s energy bill and the border fence. My whole point is that there has been a completely false narrative drawn up by the MSM that calls Obama a clean, unifying, inspirational figure who is somehow both progressive and centrist and will lead us into a golden new land of ethical politics while Clinton is an evil harridan who only attacks and has the nerve to suggest that the 90’s were more peaceful and prosperous than the Bush years.I think that this is a huge mistake by naive Democrats and that Obama is very vulnerable in the general , not because of Clinton who will be blamed if he loses, but because of his own tendencies and history. Here’s a post I agree with here about why Clinton is the better candidate.
http://correntewire.com/why_hillary_still_gets_my_vote
Good reading.
yeah, thats was great=)