stop draggin’ my, stop draggin’ my

4/15/08

I guess I’m sexist, sure, in the way that we’re all racist, we’re all shape-ist, and we all make certain assumptions about people who go to Duke. There are a few things that are inescapable, just from having grown up in the ’70s and ’80s and being laden with knee-jerk assumptions left over from other decades. When any of you heard that Eve Carson had been murdered in Chapel Hill, what was your immediate image of her attacker? These ugly habits die very, very hard.

And so we fight against these feelings, right? Some might even veer into overcorrection, and that’s fine too, as it’s failure in the right direction. As for me, I grew up with an incredible respect for women (from my grandmother to my mother, and so on) yet was afflicted with the gene that made me a Chaser of Skirt. And the time came when I had to rectify the two things, and though I’m now married to one of the more powerfully awesome women on the planet, it’s still a work in progress.

But here’s where I draw the line. I am sick and fucking tired of being told my antipathy for Hillary Clinton is sexist. I have read it from magazines I usually love and from writers I usually respect. I’ve heard it in conversations involving the few people left who still support her. It all comes down to the same flogged horse: men like me who can’t stand Hillary just don’t realize just how sexist we really are – we’re so subconsciously chauvinist that we need to be told, again and again, until we lose that “faraway” and “scary” look in our eyes when we think of Obama.

I admit it, having actually done the moral inventory required for true self-knowledge, fully 3% of my contempt for Clinton is based in a buried desire, deep in my amygdala, to bash uppity women with a wooly mammoth femur. But the other 97%? IT’S BECAUSE SHE’S ACTING LIKE A TOTAL FRICKIN’ TOOL!

I’m not going to post links, because this shit’s so easy to find, but this is a person who has cozied up with right-wing media moguls, hemmed and hawed when asked if Obama was Muslim, told half the electorate their states don’t matter, announced that the Republican candidate was better on national defense than the guy in her own party, had the audacity to say Obama was en elitist when she and her husband earned $109 million over the last decade, and is admittedly staying in a race she’s already lost to subvert the will of the people.

In the meantime, McCain’s positives are (temporarily) going up, any meaningful dialogue about the future of this country is being shredded by shenanigans and gossip, and yes, PEOPLE LIKE ME ARE GETTING PISSED OFF ABOUT IT. So anyone out there calling us on our purported sexism: grow the fuck up, and take responsibility for the way your candidate is behaving. Sure, this will all seem like Much Ado when Obama wraps up the nomination, but in the meantime we’ve got Oscar Wilde’s nightmare: the tension is unbearable, and I hope it ends.

0 thoughts on “stop draggin’ my, stop draggin’ my

  1. hank

    if she were Shirley Chisholm, the accusations might have some merit.
    Is there anybody who would put them in the same category?

    Reply
  2. DFB's&T's

    Welcome to the world of Republicans. Whenever a Republican proposes a reform or expresses an opinion, we are often accused of being anti-elderly, racist, sexist, etc.
    Reform Social Security? Anti-elderly despite having given them a boondoggle of a Rx plan.
    Raise retirement age? Anti-elderly despite the huge increase in life expectancy.
    Reform affirmative action? Racist and sexist. The majority of kids going to college now are women, but they still qualify for grants and assistance that men do not. As for race-based scholarships, poverty-struck Caucasians need not apply.
    Raise standards for education? Racist although drop-out rates for African-Americans is now over 70%.
    Tax cuts? Anti-poor although the poor pay no taxes and do nothing to stimulate the economy — compared to actual wage-earners.
    Border security? Racist although the Mexican border is a sieve that KNOWN terrorists have used to enter the USA.
    Welfare reform? Racist.
    American Idol? Racist.
    dhh

    Reply
  3. Matt

    With the inexperienced, unknown and still unvetted Obama shooting himself in the foot nearly every week (Wright, NAFTA, “Cling to religion,” etc.), there’s little incentive for Hillary to drop out now. His problems are only going to get bigger. Superdelegates should think twice if they want to win in November.
    It is tiring to be called sexist (or as DFB’s&T notes, racist and more) just for opposing a particular candidate. BET founder Bob Johnson explains:
    “What I believe Geraldine Ferraro meant is that if you take a freshman senator from Illinois called ‘Jerry Smith’ and he says I’m going to run for president, would he start off with 90 percent of the black vote?” Johnson said. “And the answer is, probably not.” “Geraldine Ferraro said it right,” Johnson added. “The problem is, Geraldine Ferraro is white. This campaign has such a hair-trigger on anything racial it is almost impossible for anybody to say anything.”
    Yes, and four years of that would be exhausting.

    Reply
  4. Anne

    Emma, I hear you. I have been told by women acquaintances that I and others like me, i.e. Obama supporters, are “traitors” for not backing Hillary. What? Is that like the old “traitor to his race” canard? Yes, it’s exactly like that.
    How insulting to be told we cannot think as individuals, only as members (by sheer accident of birth) of a gender or a race.
    And Matt, I doubt in a non-campaign year you would be hearing as much kerfluffle about racial motivations as you’re hearing during a heated race for the nomination. If four years of a duly elected Democratic president (of whatever race or gender) would “exhaust” you, join the crowd… and by “crowd” I mean all of us who are tuckered out after two terms of the current administration and its destructive antics.

    Reply
  5. kevin from NC

    I thought Hillary started out with a larger percentage of the black vote as the Clinton’s have always been held in high regard in the black community. Only after black voters started listening to Obama did they start changing allegiances. Of course, I could be wrong on all this.
    I am sure the pubs are enjoying this infighting as McCain runs around the country saying he really doesn’t understand the economy.
    Imagine if either of the dems said that? k

    Reply
  6. mom

    OK, I’m part of Hillary’s dream demographic: an older woman, making zip per year, and hoping for more women in public office.
    But Hillary makes my teeth itch. I wouldn’t support her in a million years, woman or no. Why?
    Because she’s a liar, a phony, and pathologically destructively ambitious, beyond the usual self-involved political type. She’s smart, she’s strong, she’s policy-wise…everything we need in a political leader, male or female. If she just weren’t such an appalling sleaze.

    Reply
  7. Joanna

    If you’re sexist, I’m self loathing. Many months ago, I was ready to embrace Clinton, thrilled at the prospect of a female president. Then I got to know her. Whereas Obama inspires, Clinton nauseates me. By assuming blue collar folks are too slow to comprehend Obama’s honest message, that we can all be manipulated with clumsy lies and a shot of whiskey, it is she who condescends.

    Reply
  8. Big Scott

    I’m not sure that Republicans should be trying to take credit for “giving” anything to the elderly when a large number of Republican lawmakers had to be dragged kicking and screaming every inch of the minuscule step that was taken in the direction of providing adequate health care for the country.
    And I’d be interested to know where the 70% drop out rate for African Americans statistic came from. Even good ol’ North Carolina Republican Richard Burr cites a 55% on time graduation rate for African American students and a 53 percent on time graduation rate for Hispanic students. (http://www.highschoolequity.org/viewevent/72). Clearly, these aren’t acceptable numbers either, but it’s not a 70% drop out rate. I suspect Twain was right — lies, damn lies and statistics.

    Reply
  9. Big Scott

    And for the record, I’m can’t vote for Hillary either. I just can’t get get excited about voting for someone who sounds like Richard Simmons when they attempt to emulate excitement. I’m not sure if that makes me sexist or not, but it definitely makes me a little weirded out.
    Plus there are all of those things that Ian’s mom described so well in her earlier comment.

    Reply
  10. CM

    A lot of people who “hate” Hillary can’t give decent reasons – which is why it’s clear that many of them (NOT all) are sexist.
    Name one other candidate who inspires comments like “She just really annoys me and I’m not sure why” — we’re talking about someone to lead and protect the country here, not someone you’d like to invite to your pajama party, so why are otherwise intelligent voters who normally like to talk about issues basing their choice on some subtle, unnamed feeling? It frustrates me that otherwise intelligent people who are serious about the issues can tell me they despise a candidate but don’t have one good reason why.
    By saying what I just said, that doesn’t mean I think everyone who dislikes Hillary is sexist – of course not!! To do that would be sexist in itself.
    But when you hear people railing against George Bush, they give REASONS. Not, “He seems fake” or “I just don’t like him.”
    And yes, women can hate Hillary for the wrong raesons, too – mainly because we’re not used to seeing a woman act the way she does, and it rubs some people the wrong way.
    Today’s post actually gives good reasons. If most people actually had decent reasons, we wouldn’t be hearing all of these charges of sexism.
    Of course, you can come up with “good reasons” to cover up hidden hatred, too, but anyway.
    So, to answer the question, no, it is not sexist if your real reasons for disliking Hillary are because:
    “This is a person who has cozied up with right-wing media moguls, hemmed and hawed when asked if Obama was Muslim, told half the electorate their states don’t matter, announced that the Republican candidate was better on national defense than the guy in her own party, had the audacity to say Obama was an elitist when she and her husband earned $109 million over the last decade, and is admittedly staying in a race she’s already lost to subvert the will of the people.”
    Although I could argue against some of those reasons. Her opinion on national defense is not necessarily going to be the same as everyone in her party. (The real problem is agreeing with McCain.)

    Reply
  11. DFB's&T's

    Scott —
    You are sooooooo right — my point is rendered moot b/c the drop-out rate is merely 55% instead of 70%! But, if I recall correctly, the drop-out rate in “urban” areas does exceed 70% according to the recent study. Specifically, I want to say that I recall them saying that Detroit, for example, approaches 80%.
    But, again, you are soooooo right. If only half of th ekids are dropping out in NC, that is worthy of a friggin’ celebration of the education system!

    Reply
  12. CM

    As an example, Big Scott writes:
    “I just can’t get get excited about voting for someone who sounds like Richard Simmons when they attempt to emulate excitement.”
    Which might be an important issue if you were going to have sex with her. But is it a good reason not to vote for someone?

    Reply
  13. Piglet

    But if you DO support Hillary instead of O’bama, then you are a racist. You just can’t win!
    And if you don’t support McCain over both of them, then you are not only age-ist but prejudiced against evil!

    Reply
  14. Matt

    To the extent having to bear the other party being in power is exhausting, you’re no doubt right, Anne. I can see that perspective.
    Yet there’s something additionally wearisome about a candidate who claims to transcend race, but has Rev. Wright as his spiritual mentor, writes books that revolve around his skin color, and refers to his grandmother as a “typical white person”; a candidate who claims to adhere to a new, better, more hopeful kind of politics, but mocks and demeans his Democratic opponent daily (e.g. “Annie Oakley”) and flat out lies about the Republican nominee (e.g. “100 year war”); a candidate who claims to be a uniter and able to bring people together, but has no record of doing so in either Illinois or DC and is rated the most partisan Senator in congress; a candidate who claims to identify with the working class, but complains about having to repay his Ivy League student loans and put his kids through piano lessons and summer camp on a measly $300k/yr; a candidate who denies being an elitist, but condescendingly attributes the religious faith of Pennsylvania hicks to their economic status (and throws in a racism charge to boot, all of which was supposed to have been safely “off the record,” but a HuffPo blogger couldn’t resist making news).
    Obama is so far removed from average Americans that he privately told advisors he couldn’t understand how anyone could take offense at what he said. While giving a stump speech in Adel, Iowa, Obama once asked, “Anybody gone into Whole Foods lately and see what they charge for arugula?” That’s far more out of touch than not knowing the price of a gallon of milk.
    Unless McCain implodes in the next six months, and that’s certainly a possibility, Obama may give a McGovern showing at the polls.

    Reply
  15. noj

    “has Rev. Wright as his spiritual mentor” – you’ve already said on this blog that his speech re: wright satisfied your “outrage” at their association. so, sorry, *BUZZ* can’t re-take offense here to support your post’s argument.
    which of his books have you read? i’ve read ’em both and to say that they “revolve” around skin color isn’t true. it’s just *sigh* more gross generalization.
    “but mocks and demeans his Democratic opponent daily (e.g. “Annie Oakley”) and flat out lies about the Republican nominee (e.g. “100 year war”)”…yeah, i know. it’s a shocker. political candidates in a political race saying unflattering things about each other. hold the presses. when Obama becomes the nominee in a few months & the right starts in with what i’m sure will be some grotesque, swift-boatian attempts at conflating the names “Obama” & “Osama”, will you berate your beloved repubs. in the same way? i sorta doubt it.
    his political countenance is still very hopeful, relatively speaking, harsh comments about his opponents aside. unless you think that his efforts to promote a better more hopeful kind of politics should translate into “i won’t say critical or damaging things about my opponents”. politics & esp. campaigning for election = an UGLY game, right? it’s best & cleanest possible version will always have people taking potshots at each other. i think he shows more than typical restraint in his criticism of other candidates, don’t you?
    also, what’s the deal with the flap over the Pennsylvania comments? both my folks are from shitheel south carolina towns and what he said, in my opinion, is totally f***ing true:
    residents of small-town America “cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren’t like them” out of bitterness over lost jobs.
    my own grandparents, and many other poor, rural folks that i know (do you know any?) are JUST LIKE THIS. issues race and religion propel a large percentage of their community. it’s a dangerous thing to say politically, because it can so easily be spun to make it seem like you’re equating religion and racism, or “those dumb hicks don’t know any better so they turn to the church”, but it takes a true political opportunist to interpret what he said in this way. which part of what he said do you disagree with? what HE said, not what the clinton/mccain spin machines SAID HE SAID. i will happily debate you all damn day on the ethos of small town america & i can speak from experience, homes.

    Reply
  16. noj

    btw, i don’t mean to over-generalize about small-town america (just as obama didn’t, i’m sure). i realize that there are lotsa folks in smaller communities that are as/more politically & culturally enlightened than i am…so don’t start calling me Dr. Elitist or anything.

    Reply
  17. Big Scott

    Wow. Participating in a political discussion around here is like being Yosemite Sam walking into the dark room with the burning match that Bugs Bunny gave to you.
    DFB’s&T’s – I’m not sure what triggered your reaction, but I honestly wanted to know what study or article you were citing. I’m genuinely interested in taking a look at it. I worked for ten years in an educational organization that attempts to go into underserved and underfunded school systems (like those in the Mississippi Delta) and tries to encourage the higher standards to which you refer in your post. I don’t doubt that the number you cited is true in some areas of the country. My point at the end was solely that one can generally find a statistic that supports most any argument.
    And as for my comment about Hillary sounding like Richard Simmons, that’s not the reason I’m not going to vote for her, but I still think it’s funny/creepy. Just for the record I also thought it was funny that Howard Dean sounded like a character from SpongeBob SquarePants in his infamous gaffe in 2004, too. I’m not going to vote for Clinton because I suspect that’s she’s too divisive to govern effectively. I also believe that she is “pathologically destructively ambitious” and as such will do absolutely anything to win this election. Sorry, but I just can’t get excited about that.
    And thanks to Ian’s mom. As far as I’m concerned, that’s the perfect three word description of Hillary Clinton.

    Reply
  18. Joe

    Like some of you, I started out giving Clinton and Obama an equal position. I actually favored Clinton for her slight edge in experience; I thought Obama was “cool” and “new” but didn’t feel that he had a message.
    Months later, I see it the other way around. To my ears, Clinton doesn’t have a message beyond “I belong here/it’s my turn,” while Obama actually seems to have more of an understanding of the current zeitgeist – hardly elitist.
    And while I felt that his comments could’ve benefitted from an edit or two, the general sense he was trying to convey wouldn’t offend most of us in conversation.
    You can tell me that a political speech is different from two people talking, but I’ll respond by telling you that it shouldn’t be.
    So what bother me about Clinton?
    I watch her and I see someone who does whatever it takes to ingratiate to whichever group she’s courting at any given moment. Some of the campaign film clips literally embarrass me; it’s like watching someone who will say whatever it takes to get laid.

    Reply
  19. Matt

    Wrong noj.
    I did NOT say Obama’s race speech “satisfied” me. Only that it convinced me that he didn’t hold the same views as Rev. Wright. He didn’t explain why he would associate with the guy, subject his children to that hatred, or otherwise tolerate such incredibly ignorant, racist speech.
    (Specifically, I wrote: “I came away thinking, ‘no, this man doesn’t agree with Jeremiah Wright.’ If that’s all he needed to do with voters, then his speech was probably a success. … I felt he left something to be desired, however, in his defense of Wright and why he felt so comfortable in his church. …”)
    Is that really so difficult to understand?
    “which of his books have you read? i’ve read ’em both and to say that they “revolve” around skin color isn’t true.”
    Right. His book, “Dreams from My Father: A Story of Race and Inheritance” doesn’t focus on skin color. Who do you think you’re kidding?
    “…it’s a shocker. political candidates in a political race saying unflattering things about each other. hold the presses.”
    It’s contrary to the way he’s portrayed himself, though, isn’t it? And you conveniently dismissed his lies as “saying unflattering things.” Whatever.
    “i think he shows more than typical restraint in his criticism of other candidates, don’t you?”
    Actually, McCain is the one who has thus far shown the most restraint, much to his supporters’ bewilderment.
    “also, what’s the deal with the flap over the Pennsylvania comments? both my folks are from shitheel south carolina towns and what he said, in my opinion, is totally f***ing true.”
    This is why Democrats don’t get it, and are suprised every four Novembers. Bill Clinton got elected because he figured that out.
    “residents of small-town America ‘cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren’t like them’ out of bitterness over lost jobs.”
    No, they “cling” to religion because they believe in God and the message of Jesus Christ. They like guns because, as Obama now says, it’s their heritage (also a constitutional right) and they enjoy hunting much the same as you like lattes. The “people who aren’t like them” jab is a typical cheap shot from your ilk and one that voters aren’t likely to overlook. The issue isn’t “immigration” by the way, it’s ILLEGAL immigration.
    “my own grandparents, and many other poor, rural folks that i know (do you know any?) are JUST LIKE THIS.”
    I was born in and grew up in rural Iowa. My father and both grandparents were farmers. They are nothing like that.
    “which part of what he said do you disagree with?”
    It’s not the bitterness part, though I can see why some people would be offended by that (You want bitter? Look at Obama’s church!). It’s the clinging to religion part that is most offensive, which is just another way of saying, with Marxist overtones, that those dumb hicks will throw off silly religion once the government gives them a better job.
    “i will happily debate you all damn day on the ethos of small town america & i can speak from experience, homes.”
    So far I’m not impressed.

    Reply
  20. Monica

    Ian, I’ve read you since Coastopia, but it appears you’ve swallowed some Obamanut talking points hook, line and sinker (that “Hillary implied Obama’s a muslim” canard, for one).
    This primary campaign has turned into a pitched battle and I fear that neither side is going to see reason again until the fight is over and someone has won. (I also fear that both candidates are perhaps fatally weakened by this fight by now.)
    With respect, I’m going to have to take this blog off my feed and come back when the primaries are over. I think tribalism has a lot of us, and I hope the spell is broken soon.

    Reply
  21. Matt

    C’mon, is anyone seriously suggesting that race isn’t a central part of Obama’s book? No, I haven’t read it, but I’m not writing a review. I’m sure it’s a fine book. I have read dozens of reviews, however, positive and negative, which go on and on about race. Plus I’ve read many excerpts that have been cited for various reasons and they all focus on race. Here’s part of a (positive) review from Publishers Weekly:
    “Elected the first black president of the Harvard Law Review, Obama was offered a book contract, but the intellectual journey he planned to recount became instead this poignant, probing memoir of an unusual life. Born in 1961 to a white American woman and a black Kenyan student, Obama was reared in Hawaii by his mother and her parents, his father having left for further study and a return home to Africa. So Obama’s not-unhappy youth is nevertheless a lonely voyage to racial identity.”
    There are probably only another thousand examples to cite, if you really want to argue the point.

    Reply
  22. Annie

    Actually, someone is seriously suggesting that “you can’t judge a book by its cover.”
    Perhaps your critique of Obama’s book would be more persuasive if you bothered to make an informed judgment about it.

    Reply
  23. Matt

    I know I’m wasting my time with Annie, but for the last time… I’m NOT critiquing Obama’s book. Didn’t I say I’m sure it’s a fine book? I haven’t read “Why Government Doesn’t Work” by Harry Browne, either, but I’m going to go out on a limb and suggest its theme is about government.
    What is wrong with you?

    Reply
  24. noj

    Wrong Matt.
    “I came away thinking, ‘no, this man doesn’t agree with Jeremiah Wright.’ – yep. that’s what i interpreted as “satisfied”. and, no, it is not so difficult to understand. sounds like you basically give him a pass one day and then revoke the pass when his association with Wright suits your rant du jour.
    “writes books that revolve around his skin color” – to say that the books “revolve” around his skin color is just a facile generalization. They contain reflections on race and race relations. you’re obviously stating it in this way in order to make his efforts to transcend race seem disingenuous. and you haven’t read the books or you would have said so in your post. so a big, turgid, hairy whatever right backatcha, buddy.
    the 100 year war thing…you make it sound like it was a lie tantamount to calling McCain’s mom a prostitute. i agree that it was an exaggeration & distortion of the truth, but it wasn’t like he pulled it out of the ether:
    “President Bush has talked about our staying for 50 years, maybe 100. We’ve been in Japan for 60 years, in South Korea for 50 years or so. That would be fine with me as long as Americans are not being injured or harmed or killed,”
    so Obama says:
    “John McCain wants to continue a war in Iraq perhaps as long as 100 years”
    ok, that was an unfair twist of McCain’s words. i think we’ll see many more of these from both sides before it’s over. i still maintain that Obama has shown a fair restraint and, yes, i also think that McCain has done the same. i’m sure i’ll revisit my opinion in 6 mos. when the real mudslinging starts.
    “residents of small-town America ‘cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren’t like them’ out of bitterness over lost jobs.”
    setting my personal feelings about small town racism & the lack of personal choice in the way lots of young folks in small towns are indoctrinated into the church (they don’t always choose this path bec/they “believe in the message of jesus christ”, matt. sheesh.) i think the real point is that when Obama said what he said, he was trying to illustrate why people who find themselves in desperate economic straits will develop even closer attachments to the trappings of small-town life. the things he noted (guns, religion, racism) are wildly politically charged subjects (he should have probably used more general terms – it wasn’t that he was acknowledging small town economic desperation that got him in trouble, it was that he used specifics to do it) and his words were exploited to make him seem like he was saying, “Those damn hicks…just give ’em a job at McDonalds and they’ll toss God off the bridge”. Do you really, honestly think that’s what he meant? cuz, if you do, then all this discussion is pointless.
    and I don’t like lattes.
    an ironic aside – when you say “Democrats don’t get it”…the fact that you think we don’t get it is exactly why i don’t think you get it. it’s the absence of the ability to see things outside of your adopted location on the political spectrum & the desire to protect your opinion from changing. if you cloned a candidate equal parts joe dimaggio, jesus christ, thomas jefferson & albert einstein and presented that candidate to a Republican as a Democrat, you guys would find a way to call him lazy, cowardly & stupid.

    Reply
  25. Lindsay

    Let me preface my remarks by saying that characterizing books you haven’t read is less of a sin than citing Charlotte Bobcats owner Robert Johnson as an authority in anything. (Yes, it always comes back to basketball around here).
    Anyway…
    Slate has a great neologism: “Kinsley gaffe.” It is when a politician makes the unpardonable sin of saying exactly what is on her mind. Obama, thus far, as been able to make this into a virtue, i.e., listing an actual flaw when asked about his biggest flaw in the debates, instead of the canned “I care too much” answer.
    Bob Herbert, in yesterday’s Times, essentially argues that his biggest problem was trying to avoid such a gaffe. What he wanted to say was “my biggest problem in PA is that some people just won’t vote for a black guy.”
    Which is I think the real Monck’s Corners, SC position. Not bitterly holding on to religion, etc. Obama deserves to be beaten up a bit over this. In his defense, he made the same point much more cogently and less offensively on Charlie Rose a few years ago. But he was clearly talking about why people don’t vote in their economic interests. That’s not really the issue with Clinton, since they are similar in economic outlooks. So, let him take some shots, and let’s see how he does.
    All that being said, yesterday in a camel-back-breaking moment, I decided that I would not vote for Hillary in the general. It happened when I read that her supporters were almost half of the DNC committee that penalized Florida for their primary date–and all voted in the majority.
    Yeah, living in a safe “Blue” state makes it easier, and I probably would hold my nose and vote for her if I lived in Ohio. But I’ll either vote Green or something… or for McCain. I think the party will do better in the minority for four more years than with her at he helm. The country might be marginally better off with her in charge–but her baggage would make it impossible for her to get her agenda passed, and she would be a one-termer. Half-termer, really, since the Repubs would sweep the House and 1/3 of the Senate two years in. She wouldn’t end the war any faster than anyone else. It’s a quagmire.*
    Do I have articulated reasons for this vote that save me from being a sexist? She’s Nixon, that’s my reason. That’s about as gender-free as I can get.
    – Lindsay (reserving his right to take this all back in November. But feel free to make me look foolish over it).
    *In this case, she might not be Nixon.

    Reply
  26. Ian

    Monica – do your homework. I said she “hemmed and hawed” when asked if Obama was a Muslim. 60 Minutes asked her STRAIGHT OUT if she thought he was a Muslim, and she said… well, hell, the video is right here:
    http://urlizer.com/00/2229/
    It’s so goddamn obvious what she’s doing. Not that you’ll read this, mind you, because I’m “off your feed”.
    And Matt, your elitism is off-the-frickin’-charts compared to anyone else on here, including me. You say Obama is “out of touch” because he asked in a stump speech in Iowa if anyone knew the price of arugula at Whole Foods. First off, having grown up in eastern Iowa, the denizens there KNOW WHAT A WHOLE FOODS IS WITHOUT LIVING NEAR ONE. Also, IOWANS GROW ARUGULA and have a pretty damned good idea about its market value.
    Obama knew his audience, even if you (and the vile Beltway punditry) don’t, which is why he’ll take this thing in November as soon as this primary bullshit is through.

    Reply
  27. KTS

    I completely agree with Ian’s mom (brilliant). I have a bit of doubt with Ian’s certainty that Obama is going to win. (And I wish the hell I didn’t.) Hillary knows she’s got no chance in this election, and will do everything in her, and Bubba’s, power – which is considerable – to destroy Obama now. She wants McCain to win, so she has one last final Crown Royal shot at the White House in 2012.

    Reply
  28. kent

    I can tell you why I don’t like Hillary Clinton.
    1. She voted to give Bush the power to start the Iraq War. And every time she’s asked about that vote, she says something ridiculous about why she voted for the Iraq War Resolution. Sometimes she says she was ‘misled’ by the Bush Administration. Sometimes she says something about Saddam Hussein competing with Osama Bin Laden for world attention.
    What she doesn’t say is what is blindingly obvious. She voted for the Iraq war because it was a politically popular thing to do at the time. And it was the wrong thing to do, and she should apologize.
    2. She is pathologically insincere. She got caught about the Bosnian visit issue, but in every speech I’ve seen her make she cites some anecdotal encounter with a voter where the voter said something that fits the point she’s making eerily well. I think she just makes shit up, and doesn’t even feel guilty about it.
    3. She doesn’t stand on principle when it’s unpopular. She’s been on the wrong side of many issues, to my way of thinking, not out of any manifest conviction, but because it seems politically advantageous.
    4. She doesn’t think the rules apply to her. She signed on to boycott Florida and Michigan when it looked like the nomination would be largely settled without them. Now that they are important to her delegate count and popular vote, she wants them to be counted.
    She was for the boycott when it suited her, and against it now when it suits her.
    5. She has repeatedly gone after Obama not on any substantive issue, but on what are essentially Republican talking points. She seems to feel that if she can’t get the Democratic nomination, she’ll make sure that Obama will lose in November.
    None of those objections to Hillary Clinton have anything to do with her gender.

    Reply
  29. Monica

    Ian, I have seen that 60 Minutes video several times. Kroft keeps egging Clinton on, asking the question 3 different ways. She answers “Of course not.” How in the world can she be any clearer? Finally, after his redundant questioning, she comes out with, in a quizzical manner, “… as far as I know!” As if, “Does Steve Kroft know something I don’t? Is that why he keeps questioning me on this when I’ve answered the question already?” And finally, since answering his stupid question is getting boring, she uses it to make a political point, which is that she gets smeared with unfair rumors, too.
    But instead of lambasting Kroft for attempting to play “gotcha,” of course it’s Hillary’s fault. Don’t blame Kroft, don’t blame the dumbass would-be voters who can’t seem to do *their* research. This kind of strenuous attempt by his supporters to keep Obama on his golden pedestal by knocking Hillary (and her supporters) into the dirt is a big part of what’s turning people off to Obama.
    I can admit that the Hillary side is as dug in as the Obama side at this point. I don’t think there’s been such fierce tribalism in the Dem party since ’68, when they didn’t have the internet to fan the flames of indignation. It’s just a weird phenomenon. Several books will be written about it, I’m sure.

    Reply
  30. KTS

    “Tribalism”? I’m not a member of any tribe, and never have been.
    The biggest most recent schism in the Democratic Party actually occurred in ’72, when McGovern was the nominee, and people walked around with buttons proclaiming : Acid, Amnesty, Abortion.

    Reply
  31. hank

    i think Monica’s got a point…the vid is not as incriminating as i thought.
    but so does Kent, and they summarize what i think many feel but express in more ambiguous terms–no one can tell what she stands for, other than getting elected.
    i guess it’s a balancing act between service and beliefs…Bush and McCain support the war regardless of what anyone says, does or pleads; meanwhile 4k americans dead, God knows how many others, more than a trillion spent, etc.
    Clinton seems to believe whatever you do, at that moment, so no one really knows what she believes.
    Maybe on some guttural level that’s a little scarier, but harder to quantify, so others assume it’s about prejudice? The cackle is not a reason to vote for or against, but the feeling that someone’s code boils down to GIVE IT TO ME NOW is not so easy to live with.
    That’s why we should vote for Omar. you gotta have a code.

    Reply
  32. Matt

    My elitism? Well, I do prefer HEINZ ketchup to that populist Hunts crap, which is only good for Maid-Rite. I guess I just forgot that organic arugula production was Iowa’s fourth largest export behind corn, soybeans, and alfalfa. (I imagine many Iowans have heard of wind-surfing, too, though I doubt many spend their weekends doing it off the coast of Nantucket.)

    Reply
  33. gadfly

    Hillary Clinton is solid, intelligent politician. She is not the greatest politician of her generation. She married him. Its about time Hillary supporters admit this to themselves.

    Reply
  34. Ian

    Man, I gotta say I wholeheartedly agree with Matt here: Heinz Ketchup beats Hunt’s by a country mile. They shouldn’t even let Hunt’s be called “ketchup” (maybe it’s “catsup”?)
    People who intentionally buy Hunt’s are either delusional or British.

    Reply
  35. cullen

    Just reading this tonite after hearing the debate (the actual democratic candidates’ debate, not the lyrics to “Mrs. Robinson”, and not two excruciatingly honest former liasions (‘candid dates’) and not this blog commentary’s fuss and ado).
    I’m still voting for Hillary, but seems I’m the ‘black sheep’ around here (and in my fam). Is it racist to say ‘black sheep’?
    PBS ran an eye-opening Frontline special last night on national healthcare programs all over the world. Am I super-boring to want to hear the two candidates argue actual issues like healthcare or education rather than be forced to diagram the meaning of each other’s sentences?
    Ian, you’re not sexist (unless you’re a Hilly-Hata cause she just ain’t that sexy).

    Reply
  36. Killian

    I don’t think Bill Clinton could stomach being the First ‘First Spouse’ and will sabotage the hell out of this thing if it actually gets close.

    Reply
  37. Lindsay

    Cullen,
    No, saying “black sheep” does not make you racist. It does make you species-ist, though. You’ll get yours, come the revolution when I lead my talking animal army and Aslan comes back.

    Reply
  38. Sean

    The change that Obama represents is real, and it may end up doing him in. The reason that Obama is a different kind of politician is because he is substantively consistent.
    Matt, I think you disagree with Obama on many political points. There is an argument to be made that holding talks with leaders of enemy nations, or that an economy that counts on technological advances, are huge mistakes for this country.
    But, Obama has a very specific agenda laid out on his website, and a beautiful way of engendering support with his bedside political manner. He comes by this honestly, because even when his words are awkward, or can be twisted to give the illusion of political mistakes, his substance hasn’t changed.
    Hillary, unfortunately, has a stretch of mistakes that she refuses to own. John McCain is loathed by huge segments of his own party because of the positions he has taken in the past, which he is now disowning.
    Now, you can trot out the madrasa lie, you can claim to be offended by bitter-gate, you can decide that two minutes out of the 30 year career of Rev. Wright are offensive to you, and you can pretend that a black man who talks about being black in America is obsessed with race. Obama has answered these charges, (first is a lie, second is true and everyone knows its true, third is two minutes out of a 30 year career, and four, he has said time and again that his candidacy is not post-racial, that is punditry at its worst) but more than that, none of these charges point to dishonesty or hypocrisy.
    Hillary Clinton sitting down with Roger Ailes is horrifying to those of us who fought for her and her husband in the 90s. Her claim to hate the war and love guns… it’s as ridiculous as John McCain’s violation of McCain Feingold or his push to make Bush’s tax cuts permanent.
    Where do these people’s hearts lie? What do they want? It’s impossible to know, because they, like almost every politician before them, will shift their opinion based on political whimsy.
    We know where Obama stands, and when people take issue with his left-leaning economic plan, or his firm opposition to the anti-choice lobby, then I respect that. You can vote against him because you think his policies will be bad for America.
    But claiming this guy is responsible for Rev. Wright’s most controversial statements, or that he is elitist because he recognizes the disillusionment in America’s middle class… that’s just stupid.
    You aren’t worth debating. It’s like those who claim that Carolina has a *moral* superiority to dook instead of just admitting that you’re a fan of one team over the other, and you’re not gonna root for the other guy no matter what.

    Reply
  39. Lindsay

    I was with you until the last point, Sean.
    And I do like Matt’s LA Times game. Let’s see if I can do it: Saying “dook isn’t morally inferior” is like saying university benefactor and tobacco magnate James B. Duke isn’t morally inferior. Which is like saying historical slavery practices in NC agriculture that eventually developed into a farm economy centered around a known deadly and addictive chemical isn’t inferior. You, sir, are a racist. And maybe a murderer.

    Reply
  40. Matt

    You’re right, Sean, that I’m never going to vote for Obama. I think his policies would be bad for this country. I’m a conservative in most subjects. So if the point of debating is to enlist me in Obama’s cause, then you’re right also that the effort isn’t worth it. (If you aim a little lower though, perhaps, like with a particular issue that you think I may be laboring under a false assumption, then maybe not.)
    I think you’re wrong, however, to say that Obama’s comfort around and associations with people who hate America (Wright, Ayers, etc.) is irrelevant and… stupid. For a person who’s running for president, that’s fair game. Always has been. Since we can know only so much about what’s in a person’s heart, those things are important and often telling.
    I think you minimize Rev. Wright’s “statements”, as if they were out of character for the man. He gave Hamas leaders space in his church bulletin, bestowed awards on Louis Farrakhan, and spreads virulent racist messages and conspiracy theories. Obama chose this person as a friend and mentor for 20 years. Why? I don’t think you’d be this charitable to a Republican with similar ties to whatever would be a white counterpart to Rev. Wright.
    Obama does seem like a decent man, from what we know of him, which makes these associations all the more curious. I don’t think he’s been completely forthcoming about these issues, some of which are difficult to believe (e.g. he had no idea Wright held these views). But everyone is entitled to their own opinion, of course.

    Reply
  41. Lindsay

    “people who hate America”
    Throwing around unprovable wingnut buzzwords undermines what was a cogent point. How do you know they hate America? Sure, they are assholes and Ayers is also a criminal and an arsonist and maybe a murderer (I don’t know the background), but who knows exactly why people do awful things? Plenty of firebrand critics (Falwell) and criminals (pick ’em), even violent rebels (John Brown), don’t hate America.
    I know you just meant it as shorthand for what douchebags these guys are, but you were on to something there, and undermined it needlessly.

    Reply
  42. Sean

    I am specifically *exactly* that charitable to John McCain’s paster Hagee, the white equivalent of Wright, and his End-Days mania. I look at this in the same way I’ve looked at dear friends of mine, that I can love them deeply and find a lot of common ground with them, even if they have a touch of the crazy.
    I have said before, and repeat here, if it’s a race between Clinton and McCain, I will vote for McCain. I decided that four or five months ago, after being a staunch supporter of the Clintons and, in fact, in a private family email I tore into Ian and the rest of my family for their opinions of her. I don’t give a crap about her gender, I’m horrified by her embrace of the very worst we have in us.
    Also, you can say these people hate America, but that’s a simpleton’s point of view, with no regard for nuance or interpretation. One can say the September 11th attacks are retribution for the cavalier acts our nation has committed over the years, and still hold a deep and abiding love for this country and the ideas we represent. Criticism of our country, and the celebration of that criticism, is one of the most beautiful aspects of our culture.
    Even the second amendment, which I assume you hold as dearly as I do, is in place to insure that we can take up arms against our government if it no longer holds American ideals to be sacrosanct. Questioning our actions, holding ourselves accountable and punishing those of us who act worse than our enemies is a sacred aspect of the American Ideal.

    Reply
  43. Lindsay

    “I look at this in the same way I’ve looked at dear friends of mine, that I can love them deeply and find a lot of common ground with them, even if they have a touch of the crazy.”
    That’s the nicest thing you’ve ever said about me.

    Reply
  44. ChrisM

    For me, it will be fascinating to watch Obama promote and defend his beliefs and policy positions during a general election against a Republican. On the one hand he is a very talented and engaging speaker and politician, on the other his Senate votes and stated positions place him at the extreme left of his party. If you reside at the same place on the political spectrum as Obama, and have longed for an eloquent messenger for your platform, you will be getting what you long have wished for.
    In McCain, the Republicans have a nominee whose positions are ideologically scattered. It would have been even more interesting to have watched Obama and Reagan compete.

    Reply
  45. Matt

    Sean, I wouldn’t say that Rev. Hagee is in the same league as Rev. Wright, but I suppose you may. I think it’s beyond doubt, however, that there’s no comparison with the relationship between Obama and Wright. Hagee wasn’t McCain’s pastor, he didn’t marry McCain and his wife, he didn’t baptize their children, he didn’t advise him, he didn’t receive tens of thousands of dollars from him, and McCain didn’t write a book after the guy or thank him specifically for making him the man he is after winning election to the senate.
    Anyway, let’s set aside Jeremiah “God Damn America” Wright for a moment as consider the patriotic love William Ayers has for his country. Here’s an associate of Obama that loved his country so much he launched a violent attempt to overthrow its government. And he’s not repentant now: “I don’t regret setting bombs, I feel we didn’t do enough.” Not very nuanced. Criticism is one thing, this is another. I feel comfortable questioning his patriotism.

    Reply
  46. noj

    matt –
    what i want to know is what conclusions are you drawing from Obama’s association with Rev. Wright? if you think he’s basically a good guy, which you said, then what is so curious about the rich & diverse (and, yes, batty) group of friends attached to him? do you think we’re at risk of his shifting to a “Kill Whitey” agenda if he gets elected? does he seem like the kind of person that would back hateful, unfair or thoughtless legislation? i simply don’t get that sense even with his radical associations. i have a dear friend who doesn’t believe in socialized medicine, but i don’t think anyone who knows me would think that, if i ran for office, i would do away with funding healthcare initiatives because of my friendship with the guy. i’m trusting my gut on Obama and i don’t really see the “risk” that you’re trying to highlight. maybe you’re not intending to attack his character. maybe you’re just trying to point out that it’s not politically savvy for him to maintain risky or fringe relationships & you think he’s going to get trounced because he’s blind to the political consequences. it’s hard to tell exactly what you think.

    Reply
  47. Lindsay

    Questioning patriotism (though dicey in most instances) is a far cry from sounding like a Colbert Report punchline by pretending to know whether someone “hates America” or not.
    Kim Jung Il hates America. If they Wright and Ayers hated America, they would probably move, as right-wingers so often invite people to don’t share their views to do. Maybe they do hate America, though. I can’t begin to fathom what makes people like that tick.

    Reply
  48. cullen

    Maybe each candidate’s pastor should debate; MTV (or Fox) might televise that mess. Throw the pope in there too whilst he’s abroad in America. Sort of like “Religious Idol”, pardon the pun.
    Joe Lieberman could moderate and Spitzer could fetch the fly girls for commercial breaks,… ZZZZ.

    Reply
  49. Wayne

    Sean.. just wondering if you could clarify this statement:
    “I’m horrified by her embrace of the very worst we have in us.”

    Reply
  50. Rebecca

    I have something to share which is completely off subject, but I thought Ian would find interesting. My kindergartner came home today from school and told me they had an assembly about global warming. I asked her what that meant, and she said “it’s getting too hot and it’s killing the polar bears.” Then I asked if they discussed what to do about it and she said, “Ummm.. something about electricity.” Use less electricity? “Yes, and you should buy the special lightbulbs.” Anything else? “I can’t remember.”
    This is a breakthrough for Orange County, California! It will be interesting if any global-warming deniers call the school and complain.
    It made me happy, and I just had to share.

    Reply
  51. Lindsay

    “It will be interesting if any global-warming deniers call the school and complain.”
    There’s a good chance that at least one will now.

    Reply
  52. Matt

    Noj, maybe it’s as simple as a matter of poor judgment, an important quality in a president.
    OT: A certain comment above is an excellent argument for home schooling.

    Reply
  53. Rebecca

    Kent, no worries, I haven’t been to Iowa since 1972. I just appreciate your ability to make an argument!
    Matt, have you ever met any home schoolers? Many, many of them are psycho-Christians that are some of the scariest people you will ever meet. They work in packs, and their group-think mentality has deluded them into thinking they are doing the right thing for their kids by teaching them a Christian-based curriculum.
    My neighbor home schools her 4 kids. She was recently doing a science unit for her home schooling network on the weather and asked me to look at it since we both have 3rd graders. The unit was titled “God Controls the Weather” and was filled with coloring pages filled with scripture from the Bible about how and why God controls the weather. There was no science, and this unit was intended for a group of 3-6th graders. It was laughable and yet frightening at the same time. She thinks she’s going to send her kids to public high school because she doesn’t feel able to teach them at that level. Her kids are going to be totally fucked.

    Reply
  54. Matt

    On the contrary, Rebecca, homeschoolers often excel academically among their peers and later in college. They are consistently the top performers at the National Spelling Bee. I’m sure there are exceptions, but generally people who take an interest in their child’s education do it very seriously and with eye’s open. There are lots of resources available to them. (The Branch-Davidian stereotype just isn’t reality.) Two friends of mine from college are homeschooling their three kids. They seem very well adjusted, and won’t be brainwashed by their teacher into thinking the world is doomed from global warming. (Conservation is good; that we’re all gonna die unless we listen to Al Gore, not good.)
    The wife and I don’t do this partly because neither wants to quit our job, but mostly because I think it’s more fun for them to have a normal social life that comes with attending public school. I just have to “deprogram” them after their Green-voting teacher sends them home. ;)

    Reply
  55. noj

    matt, i’m sorry. that is so, SO, So, sO bogus. you’re claiming that his questionable judgement in choosing one of what i’m sure are hundreds of friends necessarily defines him as a person with poor judgement – an unreal, asinine leap in logic. you’ll undoubtedly respond: “this wasn’t just any friend, this was a minister & a mentor” and then i just repeat my question to you: “do you think his relationship with wright will manifest itself in his presidential agenda? do you think he was ‘mentored’ by Wright to the point that he has adopted his radical positions?” i can tell you don’t think that’s the case (you haven’t said that you think that), but you won’t come right out and say that since it would invalidate the whole “guilt by association” argument you’ve been making. and it’s soooooo much easier to simply condemn him based on the association than to just honestly say what you think of him as a person & what he would be like as a president. it’s such a shallow way to evaluate a person.

    Reply
  56. Matt

    Bogus? Look, noj, you can draw your conclusions about Obama’s fitness to be president and I’ll draw mine, just like everyone else. Most people had never heard of Barack Obama before the 2004 DNC and there are still a lot of unknowns about him. Hillary is right that he hasn’t yet been fully vetted, at least not like a presidential candidate will be. He seems like a great guy when he talks and he’s very convincing, but I can’t think of a worse way to evaluate someone than by the words that comes out of their mouth. There are other ways, too, and as the saying goes, you can tell a lot about a person by the company he keeps. Obama has surrounded himself with some questionable characters (Wright, Ayers, Rezko) and who knows who or what else. That he chose to make these associations demonstrates, to me, poor judgment.
    For instance, I wouldn’t subject my children to the hateful teachings of Jeremiah Wright every Sunday, nor would I enter a business (and personal) relationship with a criminal sleeze like Rezko (an error of judgment Obama now acknowledges — after he personally profited from it, of course). That he would attend a fund raiser Ayer held for him at Ayer’s home is almost unbelievable. This is an unrepentant terrorist who committed violence against the United States. Forget about sitting on a board with him for three years, how could Obama think being the guest of honor in his home would be good idea? Click below to read about just what kind of person Ayers is:
    http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/Read.aspx?GUID=63512670-BF7C-42A0-B41D-5D0FB9E09C09
    You can be sure those details will be revisited a few times by 527 groups before November.
    Will he make Rev. Wright Secretary of State and William Ayers Secretary of Defense? Probably not. But if these guys seem to him like the kind of people he wants to have around, what reason does the American people have to trust his judgment? What would his cabinet members look like? How much of his policies would reflect their world view? What else don’t we know about him? Maybe it doesn’t matter to you, and that’s fine, but it does to many others. This isn’t the city council, it’s the “leader of the free world.”

    Reply
  57. Lindsay

    “I can’t think of a worse way to evaluate someone than by the words that comes out of their mouth.”
    Come on, be serious. How about whether he has flags on his lapels, or which dry-drunk I’d “rather have a beer” with?
    “nor would I enter a business (and personal) relationship with a criminal sleeze like Rezko (an error of judgment Obama now acknowledges — after he personally profited from it, of course).”
    You realize, of course, that McCain was one of the Keating Five. Talk about not being vetted. That issue has never really gotten any national play for Johnny Mac. I’m said that an icon like him will be destroyed by the 527’s over it. Maybe if he hadn’t abandoned campaign finance reform–or if Republicans hadn’t worked against it before he abandoned it–he wouldn’t have so much to worry about.

    Reply
  58. Matt

    You got me on the lapel pin. But you’re way off on the Keating Five rap.
    http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9F05E7D9123CF932A15752C1A96F958260&sec=&spon=&pagewanted=all
    “The cloud of scandal did not lift until Nov. 20, 1991, when he was exonerated by the Senate Ethics Committee after an investigation that included weeks of televised hearings. The committee found that Mr. McCain had ‘exercised poor judgment’ in attending, with four other senators, two meetings with federal banking regulators, but it found no improper action on his part.
    “‘I found nothing in my investigation which caused me to question Senator McCain’s integrity,’ said Robert Bennett, the Washington lawyer who was special counsel to the ethics panel during what is called the Keating Five investigation. Mr. Bennett, more recently, has been one of President Clinton’s lawyers.”
    Nice try, though, and I’m sure that won’t dissuade MoveOn from raising the issue again. But it won’t cause much damage. The reason, aside from being his being innocent, which can be irrelevant, is that it doesn’t fit the perception of McCain. He’s known for being more or less honest. The reason Obama’s problems will cause him damage is because, other than the fact that he’s still something of a blank slate, to the extent people do know him, it fits the perception — fair or not — that he’s cozy with America haters.
    But it will all play out in the coming months and we won’t have to wait long to see what happens. As much as I’d love to do this all day, I have to catch a flight to L.A. in a couple of hours. Have a good day.

    Reply
  59. Lindsay

    Matt, you refute yourself a lot these days. I don’t even need to cut and paste the evidence, just ask people to re-read what you wrote.
    But, I’m kind of a stinker, so I will do it anyway:
    Matt: “That he chose to make these associations demonstrates, to me, poor judgment.” And “an error of judgment Obama now acknowledges.”
    Matt, quoting Times: “The committee found that Mr. McCain had ‘exercised poor judgment’ in attending, with four other senators, two meetings with federal banking regulators.”

    Reply
  60. matt

    This is like having a conversation with a six year-old. That McCain exercised poor judgment in no way refutes that Obama did as well. Are you still with me? If you think McCain taking a meeting 20 years ago was such poor judgment you don’t think he would make a good president, fine. That’s your perogative. If someone else thinks Obama’s decision to surround himself with racists, criminals and terrorists is poor judgment disqualifying him from being suitable for the presidency, that’s fine too. Get it? I can weigh the two and make up my own mind as to which is worse.
    I hope this helps you guys. UNC grads? Really?

    Reply
  61. Lindsay

    Or, you could just be restating my point as if it were your own. I guess I could have been more clear, but I thought the implication was fairly obvious.
    Here’s another take:
    Major premise: I won’t vote for Obama because of his errors in judgment in dealing with a shady operator.
    Minor premise: McCain’s lobbying on behalf of shady operator (and criminal) Charles Keating was not itself a crime or major ethics violation, merely “an error in judgment,” so it’s OK.
    Conclusion: Fail.
    (Seriously, I had to spell this out for you? We are all stupider now.)

    Reply
  62. matt

    No, just you, Lyndsay. Who in their right mind would think I was implying McCain or anyone else had always exercised perfect judgment, which is what you’d have to believe to make the leap you did. Everyone (even me) has things they can point to which show poor judgment, like wasting more time on this.
    What is painfully obvious is that I said Obama exercised poor judgment inre Wright and Ayers. You reply with the charge that I “refute” myself because McCain once did something that was also poor judgement, as if the two things were identical.
    Alright, my flight is boarding…. Been fun

    Reply
  63. noj

    “Obama’s decision to surround himself with racists, criminals and terrorists”….ahhh…such a pure example of desperate & gross overstatement…takes my breath away!

    Reply
  64. Lindsay

    Huh? When did I say that you were implying that McCain had perfect judgment? And why is that a necessary step in anything that I said?
    I guess you just misconstrued my earlier, slightly vague, post. I was not arguing that anything that McCain did somehow nullified what you call Obama’s poor judgment. (We will leave the fact that Obama has hardly “surrounded himself” with Ayers for another time). Why would reasonable person try to make such an argument.
    My point, hardly a subtle one, is that your quoted defense of McCain merely claimed that, instead of being criminal or an officially-sanctioned ethics violator, he displayed poor judgment.
    There is an inconsistency between your two posts. Poor judgment in dealing with Charles Keating–the center of a national financial and bribery scandal–is vindication for McCain, while poor judgment in dealing with Resko (who is many things, but he ain’t no Charles Keating) is damning for Obama. Those positions are inconsistent. Of course you are free to place more emphasis on one “lapse in judgment” over the other, but that doesn’t mean that the positions are any less inconsistent, or that your argument is any less persuasive.
    But maybe you should stick to calling me stupid. It’s ultimately a much more defensible position for you.

    Reply
  65. noj

    and you’re right…the argument has reached the point of diminishing returns. i quit this thread wholeheartedly.

    Reply

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *