How does one parody the right wing commentariat without making one's self stupider for having done so. It's the epitome of an intractable problem. I would imagine if you made Albert Einstein pen pasquinades of the inane right wing junk our media cranks out, (as by such anthropological exhibits like the Weekly Standard), for one year, you'd have Elmer Fudd. Another year, a non segmented worm. A decade, George W Bush.

So it is with great reluctance and resignation over the brain cells that I am about to sacrifice on the altar of pointing out right wing braindeadedness that mention the following: You will not find the reciprocal of this column anywhere in the mainstream left. You will not hear, for example, that "conservatives think that everyone gets what they deserves. A child born in the roughest ghetto in Calcutta has the same opportunities in life as their universally lily white children born into wealth in the United States does. A black man has as much chance of getting elected as governor in the Deep South as a White Man. And even if he didn't the consequence is meaningless and, as an aside, (in hushed tones) probably the black man's fault. By extension, whatever wealth and stature a conservative may have attained- say by inheritance of a gig at a weekly magazine/insane asylum- was earned. Why? By definition of course. We are what we make of ourselves so sayeth the self serving axiom. Some people just can't hack it, even if that means we have to take the hacking instrument out of their hands to demonstrate it. And if they require a little bit of discouragement to fail, that's fine too because we know that if they were going to succeed, they would've overcome that adversity. We've got that definition to fall back on.

That type of derision doesn't appear on the left, because the left has remained something of a bastion of sanity while this country has gone off the rails to the right. And it is quite a commentary on the state of affairs that with all of the problems on the left, all of its character flaws, it looks like a beacon of purity and light by comparison with the mainstream right.

Somebody promise me I won't have to read any more Weekly Standard drivel, and that if I do I won't be stupid enough to address it. Please.

This is from the same columnist that steadfastly accuses Obama of playing the race card to this day, even after West Virginia and all the shucking and jiving before it. The fact that the member of one tribe feels oppressed without remote cognizance of the larger context, including oppression by her own tribe, is really highly very unimpressive. Unless you're merely applauding the prose, I suggest you find a less monomaniacally dim individual to pass judgment on the culture.

Read the FT I gather? I liked that column too btw...

The irony of all this is that so many Clinton supporters reserved special venom for Michelle Obama. Joan Walsh being the quintessential example.

For all the complaints from the same side about AA's, (Clinton short hand for African American, which apparently sounds better then 'them blacks'), voting in unison for Obama, what this is really all about is much more commonplace. A significant majority of older white Democratic women want someone who looks and thinks like them, to be President. It's that simple. And when they see the same derision they happily heap on opponents and opponent's uppity wives directed toward their self-image, they see misogyny- 'feel it in their bones'. This is a tantrum, not thoughtful commentary. Please- for the sake of everyone's sanity- find an academic to take up this cause, or at least someone with an academic's 'inquiry first' mindset. Because by your actions, Clinton supporters have zero credibility on the subject.

Btw, as for Obama slipping up by calling one reporter 'sweetie', at least he hasn't demeaned Senator Clinton's achievements and qualifications for the Presidency and denounced her wins- for example in New Hampshire- as functions of elderly white women's 'pride in voting for one of their own' like Clinton did about Louisiana. Obama as disrespectful, prejudiced? Kettle. Pot. Black (and incidentally, unpatriotic).

I'm not saying I disagree with you, I'm not saying I don't, but you should recall that after the infamous moment in Hillary's first Senate campaign against Rick Lazio, wherein he approached her lecturn and appeared to try to physically intimidate her, (thereby sinking his campaign), her campaign people described him, and I'm paraphrasing here because the quote's not in front of me, 'a deadbeat father complaining about having to pay child support'. You'll have to explain to me how that's ok, but describing Hillary Clinton as a nagging mother is not. Because I don't see the difference (although I allow that both might be wrong, I would just like to see some sensible rules outlined, before people hyperbole off on how some nebulous one's have been broken in this campaign).