Clinton V. Clinton
I write to you from a Bay Area airport after spending some time at a New Media conference at Yahoo and then a few days visiting with my daughter. Before hitting the road tonight, I unfortunately caught the live broadcast of Hillary Clinton's speech to the Indiana Jeff-Jackson Dinner.
Omigod.
We are quickly approaching the nadir of the campaign. That special moment every four years when one or more Democratic candidate ratchets up the populist Little Guy rhetoric and evokes images of Frederic March's brilliant, blustering performance of Matthew Harrison Brady in Inherit The Wind.
Listening to the $109 Million Baby rail and fulminate against oil companies and push her McCain-inspired and totally bogus gas tax suspension was particularly revolting. We're mired in a war in Iraq, we're edging toward war with Iran, we've got 50 million without health insurance, a record deficit, a faltering economy, and Hillary's promising relief on the scale of 30 cents a day. It would be more transparent if she simply promised to send a crisp Benjamin to anyone craven enought to vote for her.
Does it get any phonier than this?
Answer: Yes!
As she cranked through her speech, Clinton essentially urged Indiana workers to vote for her by voting against all of her policies.
Hillary Clinton is running against herself.
She stigmatized China for its trade role with the U.S. but it was Senator Clinton who supported MostFavored Nation (PNTR) trade status for China.
She vowed to oppose free trade policies but, let's not kid ourselves, she was a full-on supporter of NAFTA (which was the first issue on which Bill Clinton triangulated his own party in Congress).
She said she would end, once and for all, the No Child Left Behind program -- which she supported.
She denounced the war in Iraq and promised to bring home the same troops she voted to authorize sending there in the first place.
She denounced a web of Washington special interests which is the same network that finances her.
She ridiculed Wall Street hedge fund managers who make "$50 million" a year when her husband has just bagged $25 million from the Yucaipa investment firm in which he was a partner with Ron Burkle (and while Baby Chelsea builds a career precisely as a Wall Street investment manager).
And while Hillary was onstage, promising to "roll up her sleeves" and fight single-mindedly for the Little Man, Slick Willie was planning a ten-stop tour on Monday in western, rural North Carolina -- a direct appeal for, um, the White Man's vote.
What unbelievable, disgusting burlesque. I felt my IQ dropping by the moment as I watched her performance.
May 5th, 2008 at 5:59 am
One piece of good news: The latest New York Times/CBS poll found that an overwhelming number of voters think candidates calling for a gax tax holiday were trying to help themselves politically rather than to help ordinary Americans. Maybe the American people are finally wising up.
May 5th, 2008 at 6:13 am
I agree with the motive of the gas tax holiday, as it is no different than the pandering of calling for increases in social security benefits or other government programs to redistribute the wealth.
However, I’ll take any reduction or rebate of my own tax money, but it better end up in my pocket rather than someone else’s.
May 5th, 2008 at 6:38 am
I’ve got a great deal for Woody: He gets a permanent break on his gas taxes, and we pull up the street in front of his house.
May 5th, 2008 at 6:46 am
By the way I have reproduced Marc’s post on my blog with some appropriate photos:
michael-balter.blogspot.com
May 5th, 2008 at 7:27 am
And a deal for Balter: He gets back his money on defense and can fight terrorism by himself.
May 5th, 2008 at 7:42 am
How I fight terrorism
(with my own bare hands)
http://youtube.com/watch?v=60Q7SFXeY6Q
May 5th, 2008 at 8:00 am
“I felt my IQ dropping by the moment as I watched her performance.”
Great line. You had a few points to spare, but may want to try some Tylenol to get back up to snuff.
May 5th, 2008 at 11:12 am
Woody’s deal for Michael Balter would make sense - if Michael Balter was pissing and moaning about his taxes, but he’s not.
May 5th, 2008 at 11:27 am
Well, I am pissing and moaning about how my taxes are being misused in Iraq under the fraudulent guise of fighting terrorism, leaving me with no choice but to fight terrorism all by myself because Woody’s hero George Bush is only making things worse.
May 5th, 2008 at 12:03 pm
Balter, there haven’t been any recent terrorist attacks in the U.S. How are things in France, where you are defending against them?
BTW, our street was built with private money.
May 5th, 2008 at 12:29 pm
How Clinton will get Florida and Michigan delegates seated, after flip-flopping from her original position last fall that they shouldn’t be seated: Clinton Camp Says It Will Use The Nuclear Option
In a more typical reaction to the story, political analyst Larry Sabato of the University of Virginia said: “Wow. The nuclear option will yield nuclear winter for the Democratic Party.”
May 5th, 2008 at 12:29 pm
Not sure, I’ve been in Boston since January.
The street I am living on here in Boston was built with private money 50 years ago, but when it needs maintenance the city pays for it. When your street needs maintenance, Woody, do all the neighbors pool their money to pay for it? Don’t lie, now.
May 5th, 2008 at 12:33 pm
“gets back his money on defense and can fight terrorism by himself.”
If we had a true ownership society then we get to defend it individually. I think that’s reasonable.
May 5th, 2008 at 12:50 pm
Balter, we transferred the street to the county, which doesn’t do anything for us. However, they bought a paving machine a few years ago and went crazy paving every dirt road they could find. They even built a bridge over a nearby creek that we used to have to ford. We’re getting big time! However, I do have to ford another creek to get to my brother-in-law’s house.
We do get streetlights, for which they charge us a special assessment–at a profit for them.
But, let’s not get too far afield from Marc’s post about Clinton fighting against Clinton policies.
May 5th, 2008 at 1:02 pm
Yes, more relevant to this discussion would be the news today that a Republican named Woody lost to his Democratic opponent in a special Louisiana election for House of Reps, in a district the Republicans had held for more than 30 years. The Republican strategy, to tie the Democrat to Obama and Pelosi, seems to have failed (btw the election was held because the former incumbent resigned to take a lobbying job; some Republicans just can’t wait until the next election to jump ship I suppose!)
May 5th, 2008 at 1:48 pm
I’m sure those street lights, if run by a private company, would be munificently provided at cost.
May 5th, 2008 at 2:19 pm
Those street lights are run by Georgia Power. The county simply charges us for them and pockets the profit rather than charging us what GA Pwr charges them. As Steve Martin said in “The Jerk” - “I get it. It’s a profit scheme!”
Balter, I am so unconcerned by that Louisiana race, but here’s the link for liberals to slobber over: Republicans Lose in Louisiana Stronghold According to Democrats, the Republicans shouldn’t win any race, but they will, and, with the Democratic infighting, possibly the Presidency.
Now, get this regarding Hillary’s contradictory positions. HRC is attacking Obama over gun control!
I bet it’s one of those Bosnian snipers.
May 5th, 2008 at 2:26 pm
What will happen when Clinton actually pulls off the nomination?
And, if I were in the White House Travel Office, I’d be making my own travel plans.
May 5th, 2008 at 3:04 pm
Christopher Hitchens on Barack, Michelle, and the deranged race-baiter:
http://www.slate.com/id/2190589/
Juicy bit:
>>>>I direct your attention to Mrs. Obama’s 1985 thesis at Princeton University. Its title (rather limited in scope, given the author and the campus) is “Princeton-Educated Blacks and the Black Community.” To describe it as hard to read would be a mistake; the thesis cannot be “read” at all, in the strict sense of the verb. This is because it wasn’t written in any known language. Anyway, at quite an early stage in the text, Michelle Obama announces that she’s much influenced by the definition of black “separationism” offered by Stokely Carmichael and Charles Hamilton in their 1967 screed Black Power: The Politics of Liberation in America. I remember poor Stokely Carmichael quite well. After a hideous series of political and personal fiascos, he fled to Africa, renamed himself Kwame Toure after two of West Africa’s most repellently failed dictators, and then came briefly back to the United States before electing to die in exile. I last saw him as the warm-up speaker for Louis Farrakhan in Madison Square Garden in 1985, on the evening when Farrakhan made himself famous by warning Jews, “You can’t say ‘Never Again’ to God, because when he puts you in the ovens, you’re there forever.” I have the distinct feeling that the Obama campaign can’t go on much longer without an answer to the question: “Are we getting two for one?”
May 5th, 2008 at 4:15 pm
Hitchens seems to have a curious bug up his ass about Obama that I can’t quite figure out.
His questions are certainly legitimate–why keep company with such a nut job? Maybe it is because of Obama’s wife. But Hitchens seems to have lacked a certain curiosity about the no-bid contracts handed out to Halliburton, and other various important issues that came from this Administration if we may use that word in any sense at all–strict or loose.
Also, not exactly his best writing as he tells us Michelle’s thesis is unreadable–not just bad–but in another language, and then proceeds to tell us what is in it. This is the sort of slip he would pounce on someone else for.
I suspect this issue fuses two things he can get quite exercised about: religion and Iraq. This Wright issue hits Hitchens right between the eyes on religion and I’m right there with him.
Obama probably has been the target of some of his other mildly derisive comments because the Senator was against the war in Iraq, in other words, against the defining question of our day, of which, as this question was manifested in Iraq, Hitchens should have second thoughts, even as he proclaims that he does not.
His laughable claim that this episode tests Obama’s fitness for the presidency, ought to be turned on himself with respect to his fitness to comment on various aspects of our foreign policy. Obama gives a speech (a historic speech no less), full of candor, and maturity, and this somehow makes him ineligible for the presidency? It does just the opposite, and such thin grounds for disqualifiaction would make the office impossible to fill. If only Hitchens had had such high standards when he made noises about supporting Bush for another term. He cannot see all of this as anything but a disaster at this point.
I admire Hitchens a great deal, but his weakness is an overly slavish consistency of the Emersonian variety. Despite the shift of heart in his repudiation of socialism, he cannot–will not–bring himself to question his support of the Iraq war which he supported on principle. And while the principle may have been 100% right, the instrument of its execution has not been–to put it mildly. Hitchens seems blind to this, and contorts himself to scratch at Obama on issues that smell more like payback over his position on Iraq than any real disagreement.
May 5th, 2008 at 4:17 pm
Hitchens seems to have a curious bug up his ass about Obama that I can’t quite figure out.
His questions are certainly legitimate-why keep company with such a nut job? Maybe it is because of Obama’s wife. But Hitchens seems to have lacked a certain curiosity about the no-bid contracts handed out to Halliburton, and other various important issues that came from this Administration if we may use that word in any sense at all–strict or loose.
Also, not exactly his best writing as he tells us Michelle’s thesis is unreadable–not just bad–but in another language, and then proceeds to tell us what is in it. This is the sort of slip he would pounce on someone else for.
I suspect this issue fuses two things he can get quite exercised about: religion and Iraq. This Wright issue hits Hitchens right between the eyes on religion and I’m right there with him.
Obama probably has been the target of some of his other mildly derisive comments because the Senator was against the war in Iraq, in other words, against the defining question of our day, of which, as this question was manifested in Iraq, Hitchens should have second thoughts, even as he proclaims that he does not.
His laughable claim that this episode tests Obama’s fitness for the presidency, ought to be turned on himself with respect to his fitness to comment on various aspects of our foreign policy. Obama gives a speech (a historic speech no less), full of candor, and maturity, and this somehow makes him ineligible for the presidency? It does just the opposite, and such thin grounds for disqualifiaction would make the office impossible to fill. If only Hitchens had had such high standards when he made noises about supporting Bush for another term. He cannot see all of this as anything but a disaster at this point.
I admire Hitchens a great deal, but his weakness is an overly slavish consistency of the Emersonian variety. Despite the shift of heart in his repudiation of socialism, he cannot–will not–bring himself to question his support of the Iraq war which he supported on principle. And while the principle may have been 100% right, the instrument of its execution has not been–to put it mildly. Hitchens seems blind to this, and contorts himself to scratch at Obama on issues that smell more like payback over his position on Iraq than any real disagreement.
May 5th, 2008 at 4:27 pm
not for nuthin’, but i’d be okay with the gas tax if it actually was used to manage and maintain roads and bridges
May 5th, 2008 at 4:32 pm
Bob: The Hitchens column you’ve linked from Slate is very interesting, and as is typical with CH, has many sharp points within it. However, a question bubbles up. I wondered as I read that piece why it is that CH’s efforts to delve back into a 23 year old thesis by Michelle Obama seems to undersell the most salient feature of Sen Obama’s current condition: he has cut ties (definitively) with his ’spiritual mentor’; Clinton & McCain have not. From an atheist POV - and can anyone name an atheist with a better selling book attacking ‘god’ than CH? - shouldn’t this be cause to increase one’s infinity for Obama?
May 5th, 2008 at 4:48 pm
Marc: So if I have you right, our ‘homework assignment’ is to look for an exit poll coming out of Indiana tomorrow asking primary voters something like this: Was a candidate’s position on gasoline taxes a significant factor in whom you voted for? The answer to such being very instructive as to how deeply American voters (or least Indiana voters) have thought out this energy thingy, right?
I get the impression that the potential answer might be a bit difficult to take. Hope I’m wrong.
May 5th, 2008 at 4:49 pm
Rob, Obama has indeed “cut ties” with Wright. Belatedly (by about ten years) and under intense political pressure. He remains a member, however, of the “Black Nationalist” TUCC.
Who is McCain’s “spiritual mentor”? You can’t possibly mean Hagee, can you? If you do, I would love for this election to be about that. If Obama so much as whispers the name, McCain will shove Reverend Wright straight down his throat.
And who is Hillary’s spiritual mentor?
Hitchens explores an important question. Why would Barack Obama, with his plain whitebread upbringing, join a loopy, radical church with politcal affinities to Crazy Louie and the Nation Of Islam? He provides a compelling answer, and futher confirms my suspicion that Obama is a strangely passive participant in his own life.
May 5th, 2008 at 5:02 pm
Um, the guy is running for President. Strangely passive participant in his own life? Are you kidding?
Okay sure, I agree with you that there is some stuff regarding Obama’s church that seems nutty. However, as an atheist, I find ALL religions nutty. So to see Obama distancing himself from all this is heartening. When I hear Clinton pander on about faith or look at whom McCain seeks out in terms of endorsement, I openly root for evolution to speed up!
May 5th, 2008 at 5:44 pm
I said “strangely” passive for a reason. Now I’m a Christian, albeit not a very good one, but I know enough to see that Wright is more interested in earthly politics than divine guidance. His is a political church, in the same sense that Jerry Falwell’s church is political, except more so. It is a vehicle for Black Nationalism.
Obama surely saw that before he joined.
BTW, according to Dawinism, human evolution is over. Virtually everyone gets to survive now, fit or not. I’m afraid you are about as smart as we are going to get.
May 5th, 2008 at 6:17 pm
Got to step in here and suggest to bob williams that he leave the science who those in the know. “Dawinism” [sic] would predict that the genes of those who produce more offspring will be favored, even if nearly everyone does survive. And there are possible differences. See my story in Science a few years ago, “Are Humans Still Evolving?” for more details:
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/309/5732/234?ijkey=DFjt5MUjYwurQ&keytype=ref&siteid=sci
May 5th, 2008 at 6:23 pm
Michael Balter: I totally concede the science to you. But are people with large families smarter? I will look at you article….
May 5th, 2008 at 6:25 pm
I’m sorry bob, but the notion that Trinity UCC is “a vehicle for black nationalism” is more than a bit nutty. It’s mostly a vehicle for black self-help - doing all of the stuff that conservatives admonish black folks to do (they’re not doing it because little dweebs who write columns for National Review and Weekly Standard have gotten on that bandwagon, of course.) The reality of this crackpot narrative emanating from the right is that white people will define black people in ways that serve their interests and prejudice, no matter what black folks do. It’s called racism. The people turning this into a major brouhaha don’t give a shit about Wright’s excesses. Their sole interest and intent is to use this flap to hold on to power - power which they’ve abused very badly and which at this point is totally illegitimate. Crackpot preachers - preachers who are far more extreme and hatemongering than Jeremiah Wright on his worst day - have defined the Republican coalition. Hypocrisy doesn’t even begin to describe this low line of bullshit currently being slung at Obama by the moral eunuchs and intellectual midgets at NRO, FOX, et. al.
May 5th, 2008 at 6:29 pm
Hitchens seems to have a curious bug up his a** about Obama that I can’t quite figure out.
His questions are certainly legitimate-why keep company with such a nut job? Maybe it is because of Obama’s wife. But Hitchens seems to have lacked a certain curiosity about the no-bid contracts handed out to Halliburton, and other various important issues that came from this Administration if we may use that word in any sense at all–strict or loose.
Also, not exactly his best writing as he tells us Michelle’s thesis is unreadable–not just bad–but in another language, and then proceeds to tell us what is in it. This is the sort of slip he would pounce on someone else for.
I suspect this issue fuses two things he can get quite exercised about: religion and Iraq. This Wright issue hits Hitchens right between the eyes on religion and I’m right there with him.
Obama probably has been the target of some of his other mildly derisive comments because the Senator was against the war in Iraq, in other words, against the defining question of our day, of which, as this question was manifested in Iraq, Hitchens should have second thoughts, even as he proclaims that he does not.
His laughable claim that this episode tests Obama’s fitness for the presidency, ought to be turned on himself with respect to his fitness to comment on various aspects of our foreign policy. Obama gives a speech (a historic speech no less), full of candor, and maturity, and this somehow makes him ineligible for the presidency? It does just the opposite, and such thin grounds for disqualifiaction would make the office impossible to fill. If only Hitchens had had such high standards when he made noises about supporting Bush for another term. He cannot see all of this as anything but a disaster at this point.
I admire Hitchens a great deal, but his weakness is an overly slavish consistency of the Emersonian variety. Despite the shift of heart in his repudiation of socialism, he cannot–will not–bring himself to question his support of the Iraq war which he supported on principle. And while the principle may have been 100% right, the instrument of its execution has not been–to put it mildly. Hitchens seems blind to this, and contorts himself to scratch at Obama on issues that smell more like payback over his position on Iraq than any real disagreement.
May 5th, 2008 at 6:40 pm
Damn, Reg:
***Commitment to God
Commitment to the Black Community
Commitment to the Black Family
Dedication to the Pursuit of Education
Dedication to the Pursuit of Excellence
Adherence to the Black Work Ethic
Commitment to Self-Discipline and Self-Respect
Disavowal of the Pursuit of “Middleclassness”
Pledge to make the fruits of all developing and acquired skills available to the Black Community
Pledge to Allocate Regularly, a Portion of Personal Resources for Strengthening and Supporting Black Institutions
Pledge allegiance to all Black leadership who espouse and embrace the Black Value System
Personal commitment to embracement of the Black Value System.***
“Our roots in the Black religious experience and tradition are deep, lasting and permanent. We are an African people, and remain “true to our native land,” the mother continent, the cradle of civilization. God has superintended our pilgrimage through the days of slavery, the days of segregation, and the long night of racism. It is God who gives us the strength and courage to continuously address injustice as a people, and as a congregation. We constantly affirm our trust in God through cultural expression of a Black worship service and ministries which address the Black Community.”
If that ain’t a Black Nationalist church, I don’t know what is.
May 5th, 2008 at 6:47 pm
And Reg?
I’ll let Hitchens speak for me:
‘I don’t need any condescending liberal to explain to me why black Americans are inclined to be touchy about the way their forebears were treated any more than I require a patronizing former Harvard law student to guide me through the anxieties of the gun-owning and hunting community. I can quite easily understand these points without pedagogic assistance. What I won’t be told is that Tawana Brawley was right, or that AIDS is the fault of the government, or that Jews were behind the slave trade, or that there is a secret Masonic code in the dollar bill. And the apologist for murder “Minister Farrakhan” and his big-mouth Christian friends flirt with this kind of half-baked garbage every day.’
May 5th, 2008 at 7:00 pm
Who is McCain’s “spiritual mentor”?
Gordon Liddy G. Gordon Liddy, convicted felon, advocate of acts of terrorism against Federal agents.
May 5th, 2008 at 7:13 pm
Hitchens is an ass and an a has-been. Who gives a shit what this Brit twit thinks of these matters ? He’s intellectually incompetent and out of his depth in considerting Obam or African-Americans.
Question - Is Joe Lieberman an Jewish Nationalist and somehow “Other” in these circles ? Of course not. Is some wackjob from AIPAC, or Norman Podhoretz and his fellow neo-cons who scream “anti-semitism” whenever Israel’s occupation policies are criticized “Jewish Nationalists” who are beyond the pale of decent “American” discourse derided by these rancid commentators ? I have yet to hear these “purists” of Vanilla American Nationalism make any such noises. The racism - not to mention the doubles standard and monumental stupidity - reeks.
May 5th, 2008 at 7:17 pm
Frankly, if you find anything offensive - or “Black Nationalist” in a pejorative or unseemly sense - in that credo, given the history of black folks in America, you need help.
May 5th, 2008 at 7:20 pm
When was the last time Christopher Hitchens - or any of these morons - had intimate or honest communication with a black person ?
Here’s a great article on Obama and “blackness” from the Nation - it’s by the the same guy who wrote a great appreciation of Bill Cosby in The Atlantic recently -
http://www.thenation.com/doc/20080519/coates
(Coates’ article on Cosby is also well worth a read. Not sure if it’s online.)
May 5th, 2008 at 7:23 pm
I’ll let Hitchens speak for me:
Maybe the two of you can discuss this over Brazilian bikini waxes.
May 5th, 2008 at 7:35 pm
re: Hillary’s current raft of campaign promises.
Marc Cooper: “Does it get any phonier than this?”
How about:
“I can no more disown him than I can disown the black community. I can no more disown him than I can my white grandmother…….”
That’s pretty phony, you have to admit.
I don’t understand why you Left Democrats don’t keep your knives sheaved for the intramurals. Both candidates are highly intelligent, highly capable, and are committed to National Health and getting out of Iraq.
May 5th, 2008 at 7:37 pm
Arianna revealed today that McCain and his (JMc’s expletive deleted) wife Cindy didn’t vote for Bush in 2000. Wondering if this will hurt his candidacy among the 28% of True Believers or…put him over the top in November as the “maverick.”
May 5th, 2008 at 7:39 pm
Apparently McCain has issued a denial.
Pretty stupid…
May 5th, 2008 at 7:46 pm
Hillary’s a lefty? Stop the presses.
May 5th, 2008 at 7:55 pm
Marc, you forgot to add the fact that 150,000-300,000 road workers would be unemployed by defunding the highway and roads trustfund.
Yeah, those fuckers drink viogner and read the New Criterion so fuck em.
May 5th, 2008 at 8:39 pm
“Hitchens is an ass and an a has-been. Who gives a shit what this Brit twit thinks of these matters ? He’s intellectually incompetent and out of his depth in considerting [sic] Obam [sic] or African-Americans.”
Intellectual incompetent? Christopher Hitchens? Does Marc Cooper agree?
Tell me, reg. Is that the manifesto of a Black Nationalist church, or not? Must be, because you suddenly want to talk about the Jews.
I read the Cosby thing, being an elitist subscriber to The Atlantic. (I enjoy the intellectually incompetent reviews by ass-brit-twit-has-been Christopher Hitchens, so out of his depth.) The Cosby piece is workmanlike; nothing special. Sad to see he allows himself to be published in The Nation.
Where are you published, reg?
May 5th, 2008 at 10:14 pm
“The reality of this crackpot narrative emanating from the right is that white people will define black people in ways that serve their interests and prejudice, no matter what black folks do. It’s called racism.”
That took longer than expected, and from someone I wouldn’t expect it from.
But I can understand reg’s anger. A candidate’s wife and kids ought to be off limits for the most part, I think.
But reg, don’t you agree if a candidate’s wife chooses to become politically involved in her husbands campaign by making several very obviously ‘political’ speeches herself, she opens herself up to blowback that she would otherwise not likely get?
And if you are not so committed to Obama you have lost all ability to be objective. you will have to admit Michelle’s speeches have a negative hand-wringing tone to them. Sort of hard to comprehend from someone, that would be some two, that have had the greatest of opportunities considering they both came from lower middle class families.
Where to hell is the positive. Where to hell is the appreciation? Have I lost objective ears? And btw, her Thesis shows she is totally hung up on the race thing.
May 5th, 2008 at 10:28 pm
Bob Williams, quoting “Reg” (accurately, go ahead and check) says:
“Hitchens is an ass and an a has-been. Who gives a shit what this Brit twit thinks of these matters ? He’s intellectually incompetent and out of his depth in considerting [sic] Obam [sic] or African-Americans.”
Bob Williams says “Where are you published, reg?”
Hardey Har Har Har.
Anyone new to this blog needs to know that “Reg” is a psuedonyminous poster who declines to use his real name, because, as he once thoughtfully explained, it might interfere with his ability to make money.
His stock in trade is to insult and accuse anyone with whom he disagrees of stupidity.
It’s sort of like being in graduate school all over again, except for the fact that the num-nuts guy who can’t make an argument doesn’t have to look you in the eye.
But never mind me. The subject here is the stupidity of Christopher Hitchens and the brilliance of “Reg.” Let’s read some longish posts on the subject.
Perhaps there is even some some way of bringing Christopher Hitchens up to speed, so that he would be worthy of engaging “Reg” in an argument.
LOL. Ha Ha. Hardey Har Har. Etc.
May 5th, 2008 at 11:15 pm
Please leave” reg” alone. He’ s a simple old crank (but a “progressive”! Can’t ya tell by his winded bile?) who needs this comments section for a reality refuge.
I so enjoy his link-reposting wisdom. And he is published! In Randy Paul’s blog!
I like Viognier, too.
May 6th, 2008 at 6:18 am
Wow, reg is catching it from both moronic extremes, which is definitely a good sign. I’ve been reading this blog since ‘03, and reg’s insightful comments definitely predate the ever-contemptful asininity of “samuel stott” and the KPFK-inspired “destroy-the-empire” soft-headed prattle of dipshit-in-training “sergio”. Guess what, dudes? We long-timers prefer reg’s contributions infinitely more than your content-less whines and bitching. So please do us a favor and either actually say something relevant to topic or go the hell away? Your obsessions with reg are far beyond unseemly, and now serve to simply annoy the rest of us.
Reg, you rock. Continue.
May 6th, 2008 at 7:19 am
RP: Who is McCain’s “spiritual mentor”? G. Gordon Liddy….
Not really a “spiritual” friend. But, at least Liddy, unlike Obama’s friend William Aires, served his time for his crimes and doesn’t continue to publicly regret not having committed more and worse ones.
May 6th, 2008 at 7:22 am
” Sort of hard to comprehend from someone, that would be some two, that have had the greatest of opportunities considering they both came from lower middle class families.
Where to hell is the positive.”
Barack Obama expresses the positive continually, stresses nothing more than his appreciation for the opportunities America has offered someone from his unlikely background, repeatedly emphasizing that his story is made possible by this country’s unique foundational values. It’s there loud and clear if you feel like listening. It’s true that he also mentions and is concerned by the obstacles others have not been able to overcome. I think this is called compassion and while it might be politcally inconvenient at times, it’s really not such a bad trait.
As for Michelle, I agree with Hitch that she’s not much of a writer, though her husband more than makes up for that. Despite one or two statements that have been blown up in the press, I don’t get the sense at all that she’s someone who cultivates a sense of racial grievance, secretly harbors a black nationalist agenda or anything remotely like that. If you go digging through stuff she wrote 25 years ago, as a 22 year old who’d just made the unlikely jump from the South Side to the Ivy league, you can obviously gin up a caricature of Michelle Obama that fits a certain stereotype. However, it doesn’t describe who she actually is. It may be useful for political gamesmanshiip but it has very little to do with the truth.
May 6th, 2008 at 7:30 am
Oh and another thing. I also want to throw my support behind reg. He’s got a lot to say and says it vividly with a full head of steam. He’s always worth reading. As for his insults and ad hominems they sometimes disappoint me, but mainly because they’re shortcuts for ideas I know he could express more incisively (and generously) if he took the time.
May 6th, 2008 at 7:43 am
doesn’t continue to publicly regret not having committed more and worse ones.
Apaprently you didn’t notice his comments about the ATF agents.
May 6th, 2008 at 8:24 am
Agreed about reg. That is, I agree that his contributions are almost always good. And when he really gets worked up, it can be very amusing.
May 6th, 2008 at 8:27 am
“As for Michelle, I agree with Hitch that she’s not much of a writer, though her husband more than makes up for that. Despite one or two statements that have been blown up in the press, I don’t get the sense at all that she’s someone who cultivates a sense of racial grievance, secretly harbors a black nationalist agenda or anything remotely like that.”
And sometimes, she’s just plain creepy:
“Barack Obama will require you to work. He is going to demand that you shed your cynicism. That you put down your divisions. That you come out of your isolation, that you move out of your comfort zones. That you push yourselves to be better. And that you engage. Barack will never allow you to go back to your lives as usual, uninvolved, uninformed.”
May 6th, 2008 at 8:31 am
I agree evets. Barack is more positive and appreciative. I was referring to Michelle’s campaign comments.
I don’t think america needs to keep talking about race. I think it has been talked to death, mainly in our left dominated educational systems, from K thru Forever, and has had the opposite effect of easing race relations. It has exacerbated them through constant wound opening in order to examine it under microscope, leaving an endless fester.
It is way past time to close it up. White folk, aside from the fringe nutjob few, have. It is now time for black folk to heal, and for our
bleeding heart liberal left to let them for godsake.
May 6th, 2008 at 8:44 am
Bob -
What you quote from Michelle O. doesn’t sound creepy. It sounds fine.
What about it bothers you?
May 6th, 2008 at 8:52 am
“I don’t think america needs to keep talking about race.”
I don’t think we need to talk about it as we often have, in a simplistic fashion, using the conversation to settle scores, cash in politically and stoke resentment — and that’s from the right and left.
The kind of speech Obama gave on the topic, in which he tried to avoid tendentiousness, could actually be the starting point for a useful conversation.
I don’t think it will ever take place. Too many people have a vested interest in preventing it.
But, to paraphrase Hemingway, isn’t it pretty to think it could.
May 6th, 2008 at 9:10 am
bob - you’re a sucker if you think everything Hitchens pops off on is something he’s competent to analyze. I guess I’m supposed to be impressed because he’s read a ton of books, has a remarkable grasp of literature and is well traveled - when he starts ranting about subjects he’s totally ignorant of . Like black America. Or subjects where he’s been exposed as a near-moron. Like Iraq. Hitchens was just as “smart” when he was selling Trotskyist rags outside factory gates. Just because a guy’s smart and writes well doesn’t mean he’s not a wack-job or out of his depth when he tackles certain issues. I have, for the record, never read Hitchens on “black” issues where it wasn’t evident he has ZERO contact with the black community - or interest in them, for that matter - and probably not very much with individual black people. So, yes, he’s an incompetent observer of this stuff. If he wants to tell me what the Kurds are thinking, I’ll take it that he’s informed even though I recognize his biases. On this stuff, he’s stuffed with banalities - made more embarrassing by his usual self-regard.
“Where are you published ?”, etc. in response to a question that exposes your racist double standards - which you avoided rather studiously by implying it was an attack on “the Jews” - is a pretty lame comeback. Sort of on the Sergio level. What’s the answer to the question about how Lieberman and others who make a commitment to a certain brand of Israeli politics the bona fide for being a decent Jew ? Is AIPAC some kind of “Jewish nationalist” group bending American politics ? Is it evidence of some anti-semitic conspiracy to raise questions about such things ? I’m referring to a set of beliefs that are commonplace - even exalted - in American politics, but when a bunch of black people decide to get their shit together without regard to what white people think about them, they’re “black nationalists” who need to be exposed as some sort of danger to the fabric of our lovely land and the entire project is “racial paranoia.” What a crock. I don’t deny “racial paranoia” exists - but some of the worst excesses, and most dishonest, are on display among the white people who are attempting to turn this into a major issue about Obama’s character.
May 6th, 2008 at 9:27 am
Jim R’s assertion that race relations are worse, rather than better, because it’s an issue considered worthy of attention, and that white people have decided to put this all behind them so it’s time for black people to “heal themselves” and move on is proof of how white people want to control any discourse on race on their terms - and why it would be stupid to let them.
May 6th, 2008 at 9:35 am
I didn’t bother to read the Hitchens link - because he’s an uninteresting, tendentious hack when he writes about Obama, just as he’s proven himself on some other major subjects - but I read Dan O’s comment and I have to say that if he drags Michelle Obama’s college thesis onto his rug and roll around with it, my contention about him on this score is obviously on the mark.
May 6th, 2008 at 9:36 am
At least Michelle wasn’t hawking the “Socialist Worker” when she was finishing her university studies…
Glass houses, and all that.
May 6th, 2008 at 9:41 am
“What you quote from Michelle O. doesn’t sound creepy. It sounds fine.
What about it bothers you?”
gee whiz. It is hectoring, demanding, and — dare i say it — cultish. I mean, he is merely seeking the Presidency. My “comfort zone” is my own goddam business, being a grown up American. Ditto whether or how I may want to “engage.” I live my life “as usual” because I choose to. Fuck a bunch of messsianic bullshit.
My ‘divisions” are not going to be put down. Democratic politcs is all about divisions. Elections produce losers, which is what Obama will be if the Democratic Party is stupid enough to nominate him.
May 6th, 2008 at 9:44 am
Good heavens, reg. It appears I have induced a treatise.
May 6th, 2008 at 9:49 am
I think it’s beside the point here whether Hitchens understands Black America. He’s functioning strictly as a polemicist and has an interest in denigrating Obama, since Obama hasn’t signed up for Hitch’s latest Holy War.
May 6th, 2008 at 9:52 am
Bob W -
You’re exaggerating the intent of her remarks.
I think you’re out of your comfort zone.
May 6th, 2008 at 10:51 am
“functioning strictly as a polemicist” - which is about all he does anymore when he’s not writing book reviews (which I enjoy.)
Michelle Obama at university - writes, apparently in “academese,” a thesis on the issues and responsibilities facing folks such as herself, a working-class black woman, who’ve gained a shot at an elite education (in a long and fine tradition of the black educated class meditating on their role in the larger “black community.)
Christopher Hitchens at university - along with developing a prodigious knowledge and appreciation of English literature, hawks copies of the Socialist Worker outside the factory gates, assuming that the only thing that keeps the blokes from paying much attention to His Hitchens as a “vanguard” herald is their “false consciousness.”
Advantage: Michelle Obama
May 6th, 2008 at 1:46 pm
I read the Michelle Obama quote that Bob cited, and tried to find something creepy about it. I agree that the “comfort zone” talk is not my cup of tea, but then neither are the hundreds of Orwellian Bushisms like “you’re either with us or against us.” Finally, it hit me: it’s Oprah-speak! So if Oprah-speak is creepy to you, then that probably explains your reservations about Michelle Obama’s comments. By the same token, I have to wonder why this matters: since when have we ever been worried about what the spouses of presidential candidates have to say? Can’t remember anyone sounding the alarm about Linda Bush, or Barbara Bush, or Nancy Reagan (I don’t mention Hillary, because there’s all that weird Hillary fear that Republicans endlessly seethe about…).
May 6th, 2008 at 2:41 pm
“Over time it’s going to be important for nations to know they will be held accountable for inactivity,” he said. “You’re either with us or against us in the fight against terror.”
GWB, November 2001.
“Hundreds” more? Please.
Sigh.
a. Bush was referring to nations, no voters.
b. It’s arguable whether it was wise as policy and posture, but I think telling any nation they couldn’t claim to “non-alligned” in the GWOT is perfectly defensible.
c. I do find Oprah-speak creepy. That’s why I don’t watch Oprah. Or read books by Tony Robbins or Deepak Chopra.
“comfort zone” is not my cup of tea, either.
neither is:
Obama will “reguire you…”, “demand that you shed…”,”demand that you put down…”,”demand that you come out….”,”demand that you move out…”,”Demand that you push…”,”demand that you engage…”, never allow you to go back….”
That’s not hectoring, creepy and, er, demanding? Give me a break
May 6th, 2008 at 2:55 pm
““Hundreds” more? Please.”
Sorry, I ain’t taking the bait–I refuse to spend even a minute wading through the aneurism-inducing detritus of GWB quotes. If you want to believe there’s nothing disturbing and Orwellian about them, well hey, they’re your fantasies–enjoy ‘em.
As for the Michelle Obama quotes, well, you’re still conveniently overlooking the fact that they’re the words of a presidential candidate’s spouse. Disturbing words from John McCain? A concern. Cindy McCain? Uhm. Huh?
And regarding Oprah, you’d better be careful in dissing the “O”:
http://www.theonion.com/content/news/oprah_launches_own_reality
May 6th, 2008 at 3:05 pm
“Sorry, I ain’t taking the bait–I refuse to spend even a minute wading through …GWB quotes.”
I didn’t think so.
I can’t recall a word C McCain has ever said. Can you?
I am very careful about dissing The O. She seems to have colonized the brains of three-quarters of the females in my extended family.
Where has O been lately, anyway?
May 6th, 2008 at 3:19 pm
“I can’t recall a word C McCain has ever said.”
Exactly my point. If you’re honest with yourself, you’d probably discover that you’re a bit biased, and choose to look for controversial quotes when and where it suits you. But you surely knew that already.
May 6th, 2008 at 3:27 pm
Whether or not ‘comfort zone’ talk is someone’s cup of tea, why make such a big deal out of these comments. She’s campaigning for her husband, for Chrissakes — she’s supposed to push the envelope a bit.
Besides which most of the time she harps on his flaws and pecadillos — maybe too cute by half, but also hardly a major offense.
Thank God I haven’t heard Oprah enough to know whether this sounds like her.
all in all — these comments are freakinjg innocuous. The sort of overstatement you’d expect in a campaign.
You’ve gotta come up with something better than this, Bob. Your reputation is on the line.
May 6th, 2008 at 3:53 pm
Last night at the high school honors awards, my son won a Presidential Certificate with an authentic duplication of Pres. Bush’s signature. That’s what you get in life for hard work.
May 6th, 2008 at 4:12 pm
“authentic duplication of Pres. Bush’s signature”
I can beat that. I got both a Jimmy C and a Ronnie way back when….
May 6th, 2008 at 6:43 pm
“Samuel” says:
“I’ve been reading this blog since ‘03, and reg’s insightful comments definitely predate the ever-contemptful asininity of “samuel stott” and the KPFK-inspired “destroy-the-empire” soft-headed prattle of dipshit-in-training “sergio”.
Congratulations to “Samuel” for winning the “Reg” 2008 Epigone of the Year Award. Putting scare quotes around my legal name, under which I pursue all of my happiness, conduct all of my business, for all the honest world to see, was a pure stroke of genius. Or wait, perhaps it was just the kind of “cheap” “rhetorical” “trick” “brave” “po-mo” “nhihlists” “employ” “when” “they” “want” “to” “problematize” “any” “given” “idea” or “argument” “without” “otherwise” “making” “an” “argument.”
In any case, astute readers will notice “Samuel’s” divagation. The topic of discussion was the relative talent and intelligence of “Reg” v. that of
poor “stupid” Christopher Hitchens.
May 6th, 2008 at 11:37 pm
This comment’s been in moderation all day, so I’m posting it again:
Michelle Obama at university - writes, apparently in “academese,” a thesis on the issues and responsibilities facing folks such as herself, a working-class black woman, who’ve gained a shot at an elite education (in a long and fine tradition of the black educated class meditating on their role in the larger “black community.”)
Christopher Hitchens at university - along with developing a prodigious knowledge and appreciation of English literature, hawks copies of the Socialist Worker outside the factory gates, assuming that the only thing that keeps the blokes from paying much attention to His Hitchens as a “vanguard” herald is their “false consciousness.”
Advantage: Michelle Obama
May 7th, 2008 at 4:41 am
I will say this, “samuel stott”: you have one helluva vocabulary. I had to look up “epigone” and “divagation”. Also, does my “Epigoner” (like an Oscar, I’m assuming) come with a trophy? I’d prefer a cash prize, but an award’s and award!
May 7th, 2008 at 4:42 am
uh, that should be “an award’s an award!”
May 7th, 2008 at 6:37 am
“….white people have decided to put this all behind them so it’s time for black people to “heal themselves” and move on is proof of how white people want to control any discourse on race.”
Uh, no reg. Sorta like a husband with a chronically unhappy wife, you want her to be happy so you can get some peace. But any attempt to try to resolve it is viewed as being ‘controlling’.
You way over estimate the power of the white community to do anything about what is now a black community problem, and it is a big one.
It is abundantly clear this has got to be solved by black folk themselves. The damage done to race relation my the Wrights in their community, more prevalent and shocking than one could have imagined. is incalculable.
Passing the poison of resentment, conspiracy, victimhood, and racism to the next generation? Tell me just what in hell you think the white community can do about this without being accused of being ‘controlling and racist’.
May 7th, 2008 at 10:54 pm
“The damage done to race relation my the Wrights in their community, more prevalent and shocking than one could have imagined.”
That is hilarious.
May 21st, 2008 at 2:10 pm
Gucci Accessories…
I found your site on technorati and read a few of your other posts. Keep up the good work. I just added your RSS feed to my Google News Reader. Looking forward to reading more from you….