I'm just waiting for lolcait or Shawn_NM to come tell us hopelessly deluded "Obamabots" exactly how Clinton won this debate by showing her supposed substance over Obama's supposed style. Until then, here is a quote from TPM regarding the tired "he can't handle the Republicans" argument.

But as we get deeper into the primary calendar, increasingly so, this 'what the Republicans will do' line has become more of a simulacrum, or a license, if you will, to do what Republicans actually do do. That is to say, to grab for political advantage by peddling stereotypes about Democrats and liberals that are really no less offensive than the ones we're talking about about Americans from small town and rural America.

This is what you cranky, out-of-touch boomers and second-wave feminists don't understand about our support (speaking as a 24 year-old postgrad lefty etc.) for Obama. You continue to make the same old-style political attacks against him and highlight his vulnerability to them. But we're tired of hearing that shit and we couldn't care less. What Obama represents, more important than any of his policies, is an opportunity to raise our political discourse to the level of the progressive intellectual. What Clinton represents, and takes every opportunity to remind us of, is simply the ability to wallow in the excrement that is our current political discourse better than the other side. And you, along with her, have mistaken "this is the way things are" for "this is the way things ought to be".

First we had that awful article last year about how Britpop was flawed because it didn't embrace the black influences on rock music. Now we have basically the same argument coming from another writer. One more example like this and one could say that Salon has some strange issues with music and race.

I'm gonna say it straight out - to the extent that you can generalize something like 'black influence' into an identifiable sound, I don't particularly care for it. I have fairly diverse music tastes, but jazz, hip-hop, and blues just don't figure into the equation. Ever since I was a kid, I remember preferring tight, structured melodies with sharply identifiable emotions to sprawling grooves or free-flowing improvisation. I'm not deluded enough to think that the latter is somehow intrinsically inferior - they are just two diametrically opposed ways of approaching music, and I happen to like the former.

But for some reason, I cannot be extended the reciprocal courtesy. Perhaps out of some ridiculous application of political correctness, what you define as "white music" is an acceptable target for mockery whereas "black music" is not. Sure, much of goth music is reliant on imagery and tropes that seem ridiculous, but I don't see how either mopey despair or "lace and black lipstick" is any more inherently ridiculous than overblown machismo or gold chains and pants several sizes too large (oh god I sound like an old man). The point is that every genre relies on tropes and imagery that are easily ridiculed if you do not take it on its own terms and accept its underlying assumptions.

And for the record, Laibach is one of the most prolific and visionary bands out there.

Just go back to watching Sex and the City and talking about shoes and handbags. Obviously that is the only type of 'feminism' that Broadsheet can comprehend.

I never see much outcry when Hillary is criticized on a regular basis in all venues.

You obviously haven't been reading Joan Walsh's articles on here.

This is off-topic, but I thought you'd like to have a look at this new information and, you know, maybe respond to it thoughtfully this time instead of the brilliant "omg art people are crazy" analysis you gave previously.

"Alleged 'abortion art' dupes media, public"

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/24189690