Blog Nightline
14 May 2008 9:06 pm by Taylor Marsh
Guest post by Grey
Camille Paglia blathers about Hillary and gets it all wrong:
And her message maliciously undermines the presumptive nominee by targeting his presumed weakness in the general election. But the gifted Obama is just getting started on the national stage, while his opponent, John McCain, is a clumsy, fusty, narcissistic waffler whose party is in disarray and revolt against him.
Look, you ludicrous, pseudo intellectual, self-promoting, pontificating, meandering quack: this is a political campaign, not a bluegrass revival, okay? Clinton is running for President and, as a candidate, she has every right to question her opponent, his positions and his deficiencies, of which there are many. It is not her job to make Obama glimmer so you can adore him a little more, nor is it her responsibility to make what is unsavory about him palatable to the masses. It is wholly and absurdly disingenuous to act as though the Republicans would have no idea how to go about beating him if only it weren’t for Clinton, passing them notes during class. Give me a break already, and grow the hell up.
On to McCain; though I wouldn’t vote for him even if there were a gun pointed at my head, I don’t fail to see the appeal his candidacy holds for a large swath of the electorate. Republicans, by the way, have a legendary ability to get behind anyone with an ‘R’ after his or her name when it’s time to vote, so talking about a party “in disarray and revolt” against McCain is as myopic as it is a clear sign of your raw political dilettantism. But thanks for playing.
Joan Walsh gives Obama a pass on sexism:
I have occasionally wished Obama himself would say something about the often-sexist viciousness Clinton has faced, but it’s probably too much to ask in a campaign this contentious.
That is astonishingly wrong, and all the more disappointing since it comes from Walsh who, normally, gets it just about right. A “contentious” campaign is neither a reason nor an excuse not to address sexism, just as it gives no cover not to address racism, something Sen. Clinton, also in the middle of a “contentious” campaign, has done, and several times, just as she should have. Has it occurred to anyone that one of the reasons the campaign has been so contentious is that the chauvinism has run rampant and unchecked? Sen. Obama has not only not addressed sexism, but benefited from its ill-effects and engaged in some of his own; giving him a hall pass on it because he’s busy and tired is shocking.
Matthew Yglesias pokes Clinton’s West Virginia argument, which is that, since 1916, no Democrat has won the White House without winning West Virginia. Yglesias, sarcastically, adds that “therefore Obama’s primary loss shows that despite his large lead in the polls over John McCain, he can’t possible win the election,” but also this:
What’s even more interesting is that no Democrat has won the White House without carrying Minnesota since 1912 (it went for Teddy Roosevelt’s Bull Moose party) so given that Obama won Minnesota and Clinton won West Virginia, McCain is guaranteed to win the general election unless the eventual nominee can somehow completely replicate the social and political conditions prevailing in pre-WWI America. The outlook, in short, is very grim.
Yes. Of course, West Virginia held a primary while Minnesota had a caucus. And we don’t use the caucus system on election day, do we?
John Aravosis raises his rhetorical fist, calls Clinton “a horrible human being” and loses it:
Good God. What is wrong with her? The Clintons and their campaign staff don’t give a damn that they are now hurting our electoral chances in the fall against McCain and against the Republicans in Congress. Their campaign isn’t happening in some vacuum, and they know it. Our candidates can’t fundraise because of her. Obama can’t focus on McCain because of her. Obama is wasting money on HER, rather than spending it on McCain, because of her. [...]
Why is the media even covering her? The only stories that should be written about Hillary Clinton is how much damage she’s causing our party. How she’s hurting fundraising at the DNC – they even admitted it, they’re not raising the money they need to fight John McCain because of this woman.
This woman, eh, John? What in the world is this woman doing, ruining your party and your plans and your parades, what with her girly bits all over the place, littering your space. Someone page John and tell him his guy hasn’t won anything yet, and if he’s so worried about Obama wasting his time and money on Clinton, he should tell him to try not to lose states by 41%.
Reclusive Leftist, via Lavender Liberal, spins the wheel: Pocket Guide to the Obamaniac Behavior Cycle.
