But a recent comment I left on his blog has sent him over the edge, to the point of putting words in my mouth and uttering profanities. Tsk, tsk, Michael, can't we disagree and be civil?
Anyway, he wrote this a few days ago:
Four weeks ago, the Democrats had a great field of candidates for the presidency. Now we're effectively down to two--and neither one is all that terrific an option, in my estimation. And that's depressing the shit out of me.
I felt that comment to be dismissive of two accomplished candidates like Barack and Hillary and so out-of-hand as to be out of touch with reality, I said so, we traded a few comments and ended with this one from me:
What slays me is how you dismiss out of hand both Clinton and Obama. True enough, I detest what Clinton stands for. However, I recognize the historical "first" represented by her candidacy. If she wins the nomination and election it will be because of her skill, her fluency with the issues, her tirelessness and commitment. You know my reasons, though for not supporting her. I haven't seen yours.
Michael can't actually argue my points so he invents new ones and attributes them to me:
This posting is sorta-kinda in response to this comment on a recent posting. In that comment, Scott alleges (without ever saying it in as many words) that I have no good reasons for being disenchanted with either Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama as potential Democratic nominees for president. I of course, am calling that comment pure bullshit.
Well, as Michael himself points out, I really didn't say that.
He goes on:
I'm fully cognizant that if, as seems quite likely from current polling numbers, trends, and other indicators, either Barack or Hillary wins the 2008 presidential election, he or she will make history as either our first black president or our first woman president. I would have to characterize voting for either one of these candidates solely or primarily on the basis that s/he will make history if elected as being among the morefundamentallygalactically stupid ideas I've ever heard. And believe me, I've heard some pretty stupid ideas in my time.
I did point out that a Hillary or Obama win would be a historic first. I didn't say that you should vote for either because of their race or gender. In fact one of the reasons I'm supporting Obama is he seems to want to move us away from identity politics. Who could have imagined that a black politician mostly black audience would spontaneously chant "race doesn't matter" at a black candidates victory speech? Fantastic stuff.
Michael goes on to bloviate about who is more liberal. He doesn't think Obama is liberal.
I'm not going to play that game. Again, I think the whole point of Obama is to move us past arguments of liberal vs. conservative, or even liberal vs. liberal.
In fact, if Obama gets the nomination the Republicans will go to town telling everyone how liberal he is, and I'll gladly let Michael jump to his defense to say he is not.
3 comments:
What was that you were just saying about putting words in someone else's mouth, Scott? I invite you to pore over the diary in question one more time and find anything I said in it that suggests that Obama isn't a liberal. My point, which appears to have gone right over your head, was that he isn't any more liberal than Clinton is.
Take care of the beam in your own eye before you presume to pluck the speck out of mine.
1) I agree with you that on policy there is not a lot of difference between the two.
2) As for finding "anything that suggest that Obama isn't liberal," How about this statement from the final paragraph:
"They [Clinton and Obama] are both middle-of-the-road (and leaning more toward the right side of the road than the left) centrists"
Uh, Michael, how many right of center "liberals" do you know?
At least two. Obama and Clinton.
Post a Comment