Not to interrupt the fun of, Harrogate is practicing the politics of division day. But for those actually interested in what Harrogate has been writing about Barack Obama and his supporters, you might visit some of these links. If you're interested in something like that, anyway.
Some links are Posts by Harrogate specifically designed to Defend or Praise Obama. Some are Posted by Others, and in the Comments, you see Harrogate defending or praising Obama. There is indeed much to Praise, both Aesthetically and in terms of Policy. But today, Megs and Solon and Southpaw have all had a little fun with Harrogate, implying that he's giving Obama and his supporters no credit, while he himself engages in 'Uniquely Clintonista negativity,' Deploying destructive and disrespectful Rhetoric. The purpose of this Post is manifold, in obvious ways a gesture of self-serving defensiveness.
But it also stands as a challenge for Readers to ask themselves the extent to which they have themselves, on the one hand consistently stated and defended their preference, but on the Other hand been as fair as they could be in terms of how they have represented the Other Candidate.
Some of ye have been far more interested in "Clean Water" than Others, of course.
Here, Here, Here, Here, Here, Here, Here, Here.
6 comments:
No one--or, at least, not this blogger--claims that you have not said anything positive about Obama or why he might be supported. Perhaps, in my recent comment, near-constant was a stretch. BUT (Get it? It's a big but.), you are quite often willing to write off Obama voters as "drinking the kool-aid" or being in a "cult" or not being able to apply "reason." And I've got to say that those comments sting more than the positive comments about Obama are able to undo.
With all respect, while avoiding the "sting" is desireable, intellectual honesty is moreso.
Harrogate requests you read this comment and respond to what is written.
Today we have witnessed the claim by an Obama supporter that blaming the GOP for the Iraq War dead is some appeal to Pity. That Gore might well have started the war, even though he was vehemently against it from the start. That is intellecutally dishonest.
We have witnessed gaggles of Obama supporters assert that Hill is running negative, even as they all claim that there's nothing negative about Obama's wire-to-wire tactic, in a Democratic Primary, blurring Clinton/Bush.
How else is one to take it, but full on zealotry, when you hear people say these things. When you hear Donna Brazille threaten to walk out if she doesn;t get her way?
When people are writing on this blog, there's nothing at all unjust about what the DNC has done? How to respond to such outright fabrication?
And Truly, when you know beyond that the people saying it, would be raising hell about the DNC if it were benefitting Hill!!!
When you hear people ballyhoo the previous siging of pledges. But consistently they ignore the question, what should Obama do about his pledge to take public financing in the General.
When people will not acknowledge a Substantive Diff between Party, to the point that they threaten to Walk out of Denver if they do not get their way.
This is Kool Aid drinking. There is no plainer way to say it.
This is quite tiresome.
My purpose of pointing out your Iraq comments was the that they served as nothing more non-sequitur, especially in relation to the topic, which was relevant as you chided others for staying on topic. Then, you compounded it with a "what if" hypothetical that no one could ever judge. To know whether or not Mr. Gore would have gone to war is futile. Your hypothetical neglects the branch that possess the power to declare war. Gore may have objected to a war; maybe his hands would have been tied. Honestly, I do not care because THERE IS NO WAY TO KNOW.
On the negative ads- there seems to be evidence that the Clinton campaign is running a "negative" campaign. By negative, I mean more than just criticizing a candidate or differentiating between the two, but running on information that is manipulated (Reagan comments) or that is a personal stack unrelated to an important policy position or presidential characteristic. When official campaign supporter suggests that Senator Obama sold drugs, is not a Christian, and qualified his victories on the account of his race these tend to be negative and unethical.
You would need to provide more evidence as to how Obama is running a "negative" campaign as your comment does not. Of course, I have not argued that he is not running a negative campaign as I have not seen too many of his ads these days. Yet, I do know that admitting that each candidate has a unique political style and that desire for partisanship is not a negative campaign. Senator Clinton even made claims about being a fighter and will stand tough against Republicans. I do not think she would disagree with Senator Obama's assessment. In fact, she believes it is a virtue.
As for Donna Brazil, while she may support the Obama camp though she is still uncommitted, it seems that your choice for her is to support the party no matter what. Well, at least you are on the same playing field over how the selection occurs as there can be no variation from what you say. "Who cares if candidates skirt the rules, we must defeat the Republicans" an irony-free statement as it reflects on how we entered this mess.
As for the DNC, stupid, yes. Unjust? No. At this point, the DNC should just let the vote count even though the election were completely illegitimate. That way Clinton will get her presidency and you can rejoice. Of course, the DNC possessed the power to do what it did; the law was clear as was the agreement between the states and the candidates. The citizens voted and their vote did count. In fact, Dean is not opposed to seating those delegate so they may count in the convention. Everyone is happy with the illegitimate vote. YEAH!!!!! But that fact they the citizens voted, their vote influenced the elections, means that it is not unjust. This is what a vote does- in a large enough group it influences an election. But, it appears as if it is not unjust to change the rules as you go along to favor candidates. That's fine, I guess. Who needs the rule of law when others know what "the law" is.
And the pledge on public financing, was a pledge to try to reach an agreement. It stated nothing more.
At this point, I hope that Senator Clinton gets the nomination in a disputed convention. The Democratic party is long overdue for an overhaul. But, what ever makes you happy. I'll just sit back and drink some kool aid cause that's all I can do. Oh, and I will just wait for some meme to come along so I have something to say because that is what Obama supporters do.
This is so tiresome and it helps nothing.
Speaking of tiresome. Your claim that THERE IS NO WAY TO KNOW is only credible if you are willing to totally swear off Obama's braggadocio that HE was against the War from the start.
Since at the time he was merely a State Legislator, and all.
Harrogate takes Gore at his Word, and Obama at his. The GOP wanted this War. The GOP started this War. The worst that can be said about the Dems is that they failed to stop it.
As for Brazille and your wish that the Dems have an overhaul, that is very nice. Let's have internicine squabbles, an "overhaul", while the GOP starts another war or two. And then after they start it you will no doubt say, thgere is no way to know the Dems wouldn't have started that one either.
So many dead, so little reason for them to be dead. There ought to be accountability. Harrogate is beyond sorry that you are not willing to ascribe accountability where it is due.
You find it tiresome to talk of the DNC? Are you soooo over it already?
Then end it, admit it is unjust the way it went down, and rightly criticize all the assholes involved, and call for them to pay with their money to fix it. Or, defend the lionization of the three dipshit states. Do something besides glibly assert, there's nothing to see here, keep moving on.
Or not. Whatever you wish to do you will do.
For his own hopes, Harrogate has said it many times. He hopes that the loser will do the Right thing, regardless of what blights of skin like Donna Brazille may or may not do. That the loser, who is going to feel screwed over, does everything in his or (likely) her power to back the winner. Put aside the righteous outrage, and do the right thing.
One sticking point we will not be able to get past with one another.
Harrogate is convinced that either Clinton or Obama would be an infinitely better President. The the GOP is unfit to Lead. That lives are at stake.
This running (yes) meme, that it might be okay to slaughter the Demo Party on the Obama versus Hillary Altar, Harrogate abhors it. Your comment, you hipe they implode, that the nominee be viewed as illegitimate, is just terrible. It is also the very Narrative Harrogate predicted would develop in too many circles, regardless of which candidate got the nomination. Little solace in being right, though.
When a friend of Harrogate's pushes that meme, Obama is trying to Reform the Party, if he fails it needs to imnplode. When a friend buys that Narrative, Harrogate despairs, and his Rhetoric gets out of control.
For when the next GOP presidency bears that same old fruit, there will be culpability on our side of the fence, for paving his way.
The comments about the war and Gore do not concern his, or Senator Obama's, conviction about the war. Only they know what they felt. But it concerns whether or not there would have been a war. This we will not know because the Republicans may have obtained a veto-proof majority. Again, we will not know.
As for the DNC, I will have more on this later. A vote now may disenfranchise as many people as who voted on their respective days. A new vote may be unfair to all citizens, all states, the candidates, and the party. And, yes, legitimate elections need a sense of fairness for all of these parties involved.
There is more at stake than the people in Florida and Michigan. Even though their elections were hardly legitimate, the count is altering this election. I would bet that their delegates will be seated at the convention and those delegates will count. However, their position matters only in relation to the Super Delegates.
Finally, both parties are on the verge of splintering since neither are effectively holding their coalitions. It is unclear as to which party will fall first.
Post a Comment