That's a brilliant post Glenn. I am, however, personally troubled by the ambiguous distinction between just and unjust wars. As a matter of course, I am not a pacifist- not remotely so. As the man says in a Few Good Men, we live in a world with walls and those walls have to be manned by people with guns. I believe that. In fact, I see 'protection', be it by wise guys to the mafia or by a central government, as one of the fundamental truths of human nature. We are, after all, opportunists. This, indeed, is one of the foremost arguments against those that claim taxation is taking money that is not rightfully yours, and hence amoral- but I digress.

So if you accept that, if as I believe one must, then you must be cognizant of and speak to precisely what it is we condemn or repudiate in the Iraq War cheerleaders and apologists, as we critique them. Just a thought. Saying that, I take no issue with your arguments here. They are very strong.

Well, having just had an overview of the last two posts, it's time to visit on this utterly depressing source of misinformation a few pertinent questions. Firstly- can we equate the epithet 'bitch' with 'nigger'? Does the fact that few people can bring themselves to say the latter- that in all likelihood, some will consider my forgoing the euphemism and spelling it out scandalous- while fewer still would feel the need to remotely sensor the former indicate that sexism is more acceptable than racism, or that racism runs a bit more toward the darkest nether regions of the human soul? Hint: you may want to compare the number of mass exterminations motivated by misogyny vs. those motivated by racial or sectarian hate.

It's not that Joan doesn't understand what she portends to arbitrate for us- it's that she hasn't the foggiest idea of what she doesn't understand. She doesn't even understand that by appealing to the relative treatment of Obama's race she's engaging in passive aggressiveness toward blacks of the kind now customary in this campaign. I mean, Hillary forces and aligned self-identified feminists could not be any more angry at black victimhood/self-pity than they are now, even if only Geraldine Ferraro has the cahones to come out and let fly the bigoted spinnaker. Go on Joan- we know you want to.

You are a parody of yourself.

If I had 30 cups of coffee and a lobotomy, I could write like he does. What you Sol, and Mickey, have done is ascribe a self-serving narrative to this quotation, nothing more. And the fact that you clearly don't like the guy doesn't add much to your success in doing so (the degree to which likability dominates judgment is underappreciated, not least by the quality of judgments made, which aren't always bad). Obama basically echoed 'What's the Matter with Kansas'- the issues being 'clung to' are wedge issues manipulated by politicians. He was making the point of why that works. The politics of economic disenfranchisment.

Even if you see that as condescending, which at some level I suppose it is, you would have to be pretty dim not to believe that McCain and Hillary and just about all major politicians (and most individuals) are no different. I mean, Hillary's now a gun lover. Would she really think that would work if she thought voters were as intelligent as she was- as capable of sifting through the bull (and not for nothing, I wouldn't be too pleased on another candidate for President about whom the label 'average intelligence' applied- or even was generous, as in the case of dubya)? Would campaign consultants be in business if the electorate was viewed as being intelligent? PR firms? And wasn't there a quote in the Abramoff scandal where I think it was Ralph Reed was promising to get 'the crazies', i.e. his evangelical constituents, on board? This was a moment of candor- verboten I know. And you and Mickey can have as much fun as you like reveling in it to edify your loathing of Obama, but don't go kidding yourself that you've discovered some truth. Closer to the truth is that you are just another mark waiting to be taken advantage of.

Sol,

What's the Matter with Kansas is a book written from a Democratic perspective. You're clearly not one, so no real surprise you disagree. As that goes, by way of fyi, political generalizations apply to the slight majorities required to win elections. So all that has to be correct is that there are a substantial enough number of Kansasans who vote wedge issues and by consequence against their economic self-interest, to sway the state. Hate to be the bearer of bad news, but there's not much controversial about this no matter how many Kansasans you want to line up to testify about the sanctity of gun ownership.

As requisite of the genre, your misfiring missive conflates the politics of issues (what Obama was referring to) with the issues themselves, ignores for the most part my original post, and tosses in the word 'bigotry' for good measure. Do tell, where that can be found in Obama's quotation... Basically you're either in the business of distortion, or too dim to know the difference. Either way, you can revel in your trumped up sense of outrage on your own time.